There's probably a reason anti-gay marriage advocates won't or can't answer Steve Chapman's simple challenge; it's because he called their bluff. Maggie Gallagher offers a weak tea response, which Conor Clarke has no trouble seeing right through.
As is so often true these days in political debate, subjective fears seem to be the path of least resistance, the lazy advocate's way of making a case. Maggie's not normally lazy, but her appeal to fear is not even credible by the low standards of anti-gay argument.
For example, I'm not sure which of Maggie's folks will be "afraid to speak up for their views" in a pro gay-marriage state. Will it be this pastor, who said:
The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals - sodomites, queers! That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament ⦠God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed.
Or these guys with the Facebook gay-bashing page; or this pastor who, even today, is blaming gays for tornados? Even the much vilified federal courts sometimes rule that high school students can wear anti-gay t-shirts to school. Heck, those students even have a federal law to protect them. There is simply no shortage of anti-gay sentiment in the world, and I doubt we'll be running out any time soon.
But even if some of Maggie's supporters do experience this paralyzing fear -- against all of the evidence -- it's certainly not likely that Maggie herself will. So cheer up, Maggie!
21 Comments for “Fearless”
posted by TS on
It is indeed telling that the opposition are unwilling to confront the Chapman Challenge, but perhaps that’s lucky for Chapman. I don’t think he realizes how difficult it could be to analyze the results. Variables of social measuring slide around all the time for reasons delicate, interrelated, or just plan idiopathic. It will be difficult to attribute any observed change to gay marriage or anything in particular.
Since this is only a one-time change in each state (undoing it and redoing it would contaminate the results- when chemists are performing experimental reactions, they use a new bottle of reagent for each test; they can’t just keep using the same bottle of stuff for all their tests.) It will be difficult to prove any factor-specific correlation under real-world fluxing conditions with only one reaction in each state.
Even if correlation could be proven, correlation doesn’t prove causation. Perhaps an increasing divorce trend led to the people of Massachusets becoming more open to allowing gay marriage vs. the other way around, or perhaps an extraneous factor influenced both.
posted by John Howard on
Here is the comment I left at Chapman’s challenge. The two possible outcomes I predict are logically complementary, at least one of them MUST follow from same-sex marriage. It is also likely that, in practice, both would follow, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for neither to follow.
posted by Jorge on
This is very simple. It all depends on the justification used for legalizing or legitimizing gay marriage.
If society believes gay marriage is a good thing, then nothing bad will follow its legalization. But if society comes to reason that allowing gay marriage is looking the other way and not speaking up about questionable or depraved things, then bad things will follow as it looks the other way for a lot of other things.
There’s nothing special about man and man or woman and woman, especially since sexual orientation is static anyway. It’s just people’s overactive imaginations. It’s self-fulfilling prophecy.
posted by Priya Lynn on
John said “Marriage has always meant societal approval and official consent for the couple to produce offspring together, there have never been marriages that have also been prohibited from conceiving children together, from their own genes.”.
Not true. If that were the case unmarried couples wouldn’t be allowed to have children – that’s never been the case. No one has ever required society’s concent to have children.
John said “Same-sex couples should be like siblings, in that they are prohibited from attempting to procreate together, because it would be unethical and unwise”.
Same sex couples aren’t siblings so it would be nonsensical to treat them that way. The only valid reason to discourage them from procreating with their own genes would be if the outcome was likely to produce unhealthy offspring. If that were not the case there would be nothing unethical or unwise about same sex couples procreating with their own genes.
posted by John Howard on
“Not true. If that were the case unmarried couples wouldn’t be allowed to have children – that’s never been the case. No one has ever required society’s concent to have children.”
That just shows that society’s consent is not necessary, it does not prove there is no such thing as “society’s consent” or that marriage does not give it. In fact, you are admitting that there is such a thing as “society’s consent” when you say that people don’t need it. And you don’t deny that all marriages give it, which is the point I’m making: that it is what needs to be protected.
Same sex couples aren’t siblings so it would be nonsensical to treat them that way.
Siblings are just one of many relationships that are “like siblings” in that they are “treated that way” in my state, and note that not all of them are blood relatives.
The only valid reason to discourage them from procreating with their own genes would be if the outcome was likely to produce unhealthy offspring.
If certain relationships were likely to produce unhealthy offspring, that would certainly be a valid reason to prohibit those relationships from attempting to do so. Note that it’s not an individual’s risk, or a specific couple’s paired risk that society considers, but the relationship type’s risk. And relation – this person is that person’s mother, that person is her father, brother, etc – is information the public knows and should know, as is sex. There are many reasons besides risk that we prohibit those relationships from marrying, including family cohesion, social cost of allowing it, the environmental impact, etc.
If that were not the case there would be nothing unethical or unwise about same sex couples procreating with their own genes.
The waste of resources and energy to develop it, the diversion of billions of dollars from medical care once it is developed, the harm it would do to individuals dignity by moving to a post-gendered world, the loss of individual conception rights that would come from moving to a risk-based reproductive right, the huge government regulation that would come from opening of the door to genetic engineering… there are many reasons besides risk to the baby. The risk to the baby is the least justifiable, actually, though the easiest and most obvious to most people.
posted by Daniel on
meisterdada: daniel-der-meister@hotmail.de
mail me to chat 😀
posted by John Howard on
A not-so-odd silence from Chapman and Rauch on the logically required effects of same-sex marriage: that it will either strip procreation rights from marriage, or give procreation rights to same-sex couples. It’s not so odd, because they don’t deny this, they simply assert that, of course, it’s a given that people have the same right to procreate with someone of the same sex as they do with someone of the other sex. They have long believed that there is no right to procreate (they seriously believe ‘stupid people should not breed’), and they have long believed we will develop same-sex conception. They have absorbed this thinking after years of science fiction, over-socialization, shame and fear of sex, etc. But they really should share their underlying assumptions with the rest of the world and admit that their position is based on taking science fiction seriously and achieving postgenderism and Transhumanism.
posted by Priya Lynn on
John said “That just shows that society’s consent is not necessary, it does not prove there is no such thing as “society’s consent” or that marriage does not give it. In fact, you are admitting that there is such a thing as “society’s consent” when you say that people don’t need it. And you don’t deny that all marriages give it, which is the point I’m making: that it is what needs to be protected.”.
Noting that people have children without a consent by society does not prove that such consent exists, it merely notes its absense in this case and possibly all cases. And yes I do deny that marriage gives a consent by society to have children. I’ve never heard anyone other than you suggest that unmarried people don’t have a right to have children. If you believe such consent exists and is valuable you’ll lose nothing by allowing gays to marry and conceive with their own genes assuming an unhealthy child is unlikely – you’ll still have your belief that marriage gives consent for conception.
John said “Siblings are just one of many relationships that are “like siblings” in that they are “treated that way” in my state, and note that not all of them are blood relatives”.
In all of the examples you linked to the relationships are of close relatives. Same sex couples that wish to marry aren’t close relatives so once again it is absurd of you to attempt to treat them that way.
John said “If certain relationships were likely to produce unhealthy offspring, that would certainly be a valid reason to prohibit those relationships from attempting to do so. Note that it’s not an individual’s risk, or a specific couple’s paired risk that society considers, but the relationship type’s risk. And relation – this person is that person’s mother, that person is her father, brother, etc – is information the public knows and should know, as is sex. There are many reasons besides risk that we prohibit those relationships from marrying, including family cohesion, social cost of allowing it, the environmental impact, etc.”.
Your first comment merely repeats what I said already – The only valid reason to discourage them from procreating with their own genes would be if the outcome was likely to produce unhealthy offspring. Your final sentence is a list of pathetic excuses. The APA supports same sex marriage as a healthy move for couples and society. There are no problems with family cohesion – marriage encourages family cohesion so attempting to disallow it brings about what you claim to want to avoid. The social cost of allowing it, the environmental impact, etc. are no different than it is for opposite sex couples, in fact logically marriage of same sex couples lowers societal cost and environmental impact because of the cost savings of living together versus living singlely, supporting each other, sharing a dwelling and saving on fossil fuels, etc.
John said “The waste of resources and energy to develop it, the diversion of billions of dollars from medical care once it is developed”.
It’ll only be developed if there is a profit incentive and the users will be paying for it ultimately so it is not a waste and there will be no “billions” (lol) diverted from medical care. Ultimately it will result in tax paying citizens who will more than contribute back the cost of any development.
John said “the harm it would do to individuals dignity by moving to a post-gendered world”.
The idea that gay couples having children from their own genes will harm anyone’s dignity is preposterous – you’re just making shit up here.
John said “the loss of individual conception rights that would come from moving to a risk-based reproductive right,”.
You’re the one trying to deny people conception rights. Gay couples conceiving with their own genes won’t deny anyone else the right to conceive – once again, throttle back the craziness. As to a risk based reproductive right – efforts to enforce that have long been a part of society – that’s why close relatives are discouraged from having children. Bringing gay conception into the equation won’t change that in anyway.
John said “the huge government regulation that would come from opening of the door to genetic engineering”.
It’s not a given that government regulation is a bad thing, without government regulation you wouldn’t have safe food, housing, transportation, medicine, etc. Once again the user’s of the technology will ultimately pay for it and it will result in more taxpaying citizens which will further pay for any regulation costs and be a boon to society.
John said “there are many reasons besides risk to the baby. The risk to the baby is the least justifiable, actually, though the easiest and most obvious to most people.”.
As demonstrated, the risk to the baby is the ONLY concern – the rest you just made up.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I must admit John, that is a scary Orwellian world you envision – one where the government decides who can and who cannot conceive children, where you need a license to conceive. I’m confident that the vast majority of people find your vision chilling and will hope and pray your draconian oppression never comes about.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Further to John’s statement: “In fact, you are admitting that there is such a thing as “society’s consent” when you say that people don’t need it.”.
So, if I said people have never needed the consent of leprechauns to conceive that would prove there is such a thing as leprechaun’s consent?
posted by John Howard on
Just as I was saying, you don’t deny the effects I am citing, you simply assert that they are no big deal, or already true.
“And yes I do deny that marriage gives a consent by society to have children.”
I don’t think people realize that same-sex marriage supporters already believe that. It is a terrible and radical change to marriage to deny that it gives a consent by society to have children. Never before has there been a marriage that was prohibited from having children, with the couple’s own genes, but now you deny that they have the right! All marriages should be allowed to have children together, and all people should be allowed to marry, with only certain generic relationships being prohibited that apply to everyone equally and have a supportable basis. Being of the same sex as someone else is a relationship, and there is a supportable basis to prohibit that relationship from attempting to conceive.
And you deny that marriage protects conception rights even though you also want to give conception rights to same-sex couples, because you want to pretend to be open to banning same-sex conception, even though you really aren’t. Marriage is destroyed in the process. If we allow same-sex conception, then certainly we should allow same-sex marriage, there is no need to also strip conception rights from marriage, it just is a reckless result of haste and animosity, or maybe jealousy.
Regulation merely costs money. It is a necessary thing, and a good thing, far better than an unregulated industry, but it is far better to just not have the industry that needs to be regulated. The benefits of not allowing same-sex conception far outweigh the benefits of allowing it. It will cause so much damage, harm rights, cost money, and for what? What is the need? I haven’t seen anyone complaining that they are unable to have children with someone of their same sex.
posted by John Howard on
And I need to respond to the ridiculously wrong charge that I envision a world “where the government decides who can and who cannot conceive children, where you need a license to conceive.”
I in fact envision and am working for precisely the opposite: a world where everyone has an equal right to have children, and government does NOT decide who can and cannot have children. And my proposal wouldn’t make it so you need a license to conceive, it would merely protect the right of married couples to conceive together, while you deny that married couples have the right to have children together. You want government to decide who can and cannot have children together based on a eugenic assessment of risk and genetic qualities, which is Orwellian, Huxlian, Gattacan, etc. Wanting to preserve natural conception and equal conception rights is none of those.
posted by Priya Lynn on
John said “Just as I was saying, you don’t deny the effects I am citing, you simply assert that they are no big deal, or already true.”.
Wrong. As I demonstrated, there is no truth to your claims that:
Billions will be diverted from health care.
Society gives consent to have children through marriage.
Same sex marriages are the same as marriages between close relatives.
There are problems with family cohesion in gay marriages.
Allowing gays to marry and conceive will prevent you from believing marriage provides conception rights.
There is a negative financial cost to allowing gays to marry.
There is a negative environmental impact if gays are allowed to marry.
Gay people conceiving will harm someone’s dignity.
Someone will lose the right to conceive if gays are allowed to conceive.
There are many reasons besides risk to the baby to deny gays the right to conceive.
John said “It is a terrible and radical change to marriage to deny that it gives a consent by society to have children.”.
LOL, it doesn’t change marriage in anyway. No couple has ever been denied the right to concieve simply because they weren’t married.
John said “Never before has there been a marriage that was prohibited from having children, with the couple’s own genes, but now you deny that they have the right!”.
I never said any such thing – you’re crazy. All couples have the right to have children – no one is denied that right, married, single, brother/sister, and so on.
John said “All marriages should be allowed to have children together, and all people should be allowed to marry, with only certain generic relationships being prohibited that apply to everyone equally and have a supportable basis. Being of the same sex as someone else is a relationship, and there is a supportable basis to prohibit that relationship from attempting to conceive.”.
John said “And you deny that marriage protects conception rights”.
If there was any truth to that, there’d be cases where unmarried couples were denied the right to conceive – that’s never happened. This is a figment of your imagination.
John said “even though you also want to give conception rights to same-sex couples, because you want to pretend to be open to banning same-sex conception, even though you really aren’t.”.
Everyone that is capable of conceiving has that right and you’re correct I wouldn’t be open to banning same sex conception although I’d accept that we should discourage it if unhealthy babies were a common result. Even brothers and sisters aren’t banned from conceiving and denying them the right to marry doesn’t change that, hence your argument that marriage provides societal approval for conception is refuted.
John said “Marriage is destroyed in the process”.
That’s just stupid. If the same sex couple down the street conceives it has no effect whatsoever on the marriage of Ted and Alice. I challange you to give me realisticstep by step cause and effect scenario whereby their marriage would be destroyed by such an act – you can’t do it – the best you can do is some nebulous rhetoric about how the word marriage “means” something different. As to a real world marriage, it remains identical to the way it was.
John said “If we allow same-sex conception, then certainly we should allow same-sex marriage,”.
We should allow equal marriage regardless of whether or not we discourage same sex conception.
There is no supportable basis for denying gay couples the right to marry. The only basis for denying gay couples the right to conceive is if the offspring is likely to be unhealthy – on that we agee. Beyond that you have no case.
John said “There is no need to also strip conception rights from marriage, it just is a reckless result of haste and animosity, or maybe jealousy.”.
The right to conceive exists regardless of anyone’s marital status. No one’s trying to strip the right to conceive from married couples so your suggestion that I’m motivated by animosity or jealousy is nonsensical. It is you who’s trying to deny people both the right to marry and to conceive, if anyone’s motivated by animosity or jealousy its obviously you.
John said “Regulation merely costs money. It is a necessary thing, and a good thing, far better than an unregulated industry, but it is far better to just not have the industry that needs to be regulated.”.
That’s just crazy talk again. Would you say its far better to not have a health care industry that needs to be regulated? Give your head a shake.
John said “The benefits of not allowing same-sex conception far outweigh the benefits of allowing it.”.
The only possible benefit to not allowing same sex conception is the prevention of unhealthy babies. If that is not a problem there are no benifts to disallowing same sex conception.
John said “What is the need? I haven’t seen anyone complaining that they are unable to have children with someone of their same sex.”.
I on the other hand have known many same sex couples who would like to conceive their own genetic offspring. If it can be done safely it would be immoral to deny them a right everyone else has.
John said “It will cause so much damage, harm rights, cost money, and for what?”.
Children are the future, the basis of society, having healthy childen in no way is damaging. As to cost, that will be born by the people using it – who are you to deny them the right to spend their money as they see fit?! As to “harming rights”, that’s some profound Orwellian double-speak you’ve got going there. It is YOU who wants to deny people the right to marry and conceive. NO gays are trying to deny anyone else those rights, or any other rights. YOU’RE the one seeking to harm rights.
Its a scary step you want to take. Once you allow the government to license conception what’s to stop them from further restricting the right to conceive. Pretty soon it’ll be only people with above average intelligence will be given a license to conceive. Then poor people will be denied the right to conceive, then maybe if you’re the wrong religion, political party, or an atheist you’ll be denied a license to conceive. You want to take a step towards an unmitigated social disaster. No way should we ever let the government dictate who can have children and who can’t. Its NEVER been done and NEVER should be.
posted by Priya Lynn on
John said “I in fact envision and am working for precisely the opposite: a world where everyone has an equal right to have children, and government does NOT decide who can and cannot have children.”.
You LIAR! You’ve gone on and on about how you want the government to deny gay couples the right to conceive. You most certainly do not envision a world where everyone has the equal right to have children.
John said “And my proposal wouldn’t make it so you need a license to conceive, it would merely protect the right of married couples to conceive together, while you deny that married couples have the right to have children together.”.
I never said any such thing, you liar! Married couples have the right to conceive just as unmarried couples do. What I said is that this right exists appart from any marriage itself!
John said “You want government to decide who can and cannot have children together based on a eugenic assessment of risk and genetic qualities”.
What happened to your claim that I “want to pretend to be open to banning same-sex conception, even though you really aren’t”? You’re contradicting yourself. As I said, I don’t favour banning conception under any circumstances although I would discourage it in some cases. In fact it is you, and only you who wants the governement to prevent some couples from conceiving. You’re projecting – accusing me of promoting that which you are promoting. What a hypocrite.
John said “Wanting to preserve natural conception and equal conception rights is none of those.”
But YOU DON’T WANT TO PRESERVE EQUAL CONCEPTION RIGHTS – YOU WANT TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO CONCEIVE EVEN IF THE BABIES ARE HEALTHY.
God, you’re dumber than a bag of hammers.
posted by John Howard on
Wrong.
–those aren’t the claims I am referring to. What you don’t deny are my claims that it will mean allowing same-sex conception, and/or that it will mean denying that marriages have conception rights.
Billions will be diverted from health care.
–It’ll definitely cost Billions, and that will have to come from somewhere. Even if we maintained health care spending and financed same-sex conception by raiding NASA’s budget, it will still divert the researchers and facilities away from medical research, because those resources aren’t transferable like money is, those are specialized researchers and there are only so many of them.
Society gives consent to have children through marriage.
–It does. You don’t need it, but it always has and always should.
Same sex marriages are the same as marriages between close relatives.
None of them should not be allowed to conceive children together.
There are problems with family cohesion in gay marriages.
I was referring to the reason we ban incest, which is not just to prevent birth defects but also other reasons. The point was that there can be many reasons to prohibit certain relationships.
Allowing gays to marry and conceive will prevent you from believing marriage provides conception rights.
–Well, if we allow same-sex conception, we should definitely allow same-sex marriage, and such a situation wouldn’t strip conception rights from marriage, but it would imply that the right to use modified genes is equivalent to the right to use unmodified genes, which strips everyone of the right to use their unmodified gametes, because it asserts that the right to use unmodified genes is not special, and is fulfilled by use of modified genes.
There is a negative financial cost to allowing gays to marry.
To conceive, yes, and that’s what allowing same-sex marriage allows. Civil Unions like I propose would have a small financial cost, in the form of federal survivor benefits, but it would be a trivial amount, and worth paying both morally and pragmatically.
There is a negative environmental impact if gays are allowed to marry.
Again, to conceive, yes. A tremendous environmental impact.
Gay people conceiving will harm someone’s dignity.
It strips everyone of their sexual identity, it says it doesn’t matter, when for so many people, it totally matters to them that they are a man or a woman.
Someone will lose the right to conceive if gays are allowed to conceive.
It would open the door to genetic engineering which would have a big psychological impact on people’s perceived right to use their own genes rather than improved one, and it would imply that there is no special right to use your own genes.
There are many reasons besides risk to the baby to deny gays the right to conceive.
Right, cost, environment, loss of rights, etc.
John said “It is a terrible and radical change to marriage to deny that it gives a consent by society to have children.”.
LOL, it doesn’t change marriage in anyway. No couple has ever been denied the right to concieve simply because they weren’t married.
I am talking about the assent by society to procreate together that all marriages have. Billions of couples have been denied the right to conceive together because they weren’t married. People have never been allowed to screw another man’s wife. It’s true people have often gotten away with consensual illicit sex, and in this country, it feels like a God given right, but in Egypt, its a capital crime to this day, and we used to jail and fine people here, too. It still isn’t a right, we just act like it is, because we have paternity tests now, and deadbeat dad laws, and the Pill, and legitimacy rulings and repeals that make a man married to every woman he has a child with, but only if he has a child. If not, he owes her nothing. But even that big change to how we deal with sex rights 40 years ago never changed the fact that all marriages are allowed to conceive together, marriage approved and condoned and legitimated having children together.
John said “Never before has there been a marriage that was prohibited from having children, with the couple’s own genes, but now you deny that they have the right!”.
I never said any such thing – you’re crazy. All couples have the right to have children – no one is denied that right, married, single, brother/sister, and so on.
Hah, now you’re claiming incest is a right too? So let’s see, you have now claimed a right to do same-sex conception, said “And yes I do deny that marriage gives a consent by society to have children”, and now, you add that a brother and sister have a right to have children together! The Trifecta! It is really demeaning to marriage to equate their right to have children to a brother and sister’s right, or a same-sex couple’s. Reeks of jealousy and vindictiveness.
John said “And you deny that marriage protects conception rights”.
If there was any truth to that, there’d be cases where unmarried couples were denied the right to conceive – that’s never happened. This is a figment of your imagination.
First of all, there have been billions of such cases, second, no, it’s not necessary. Marriage can and does still protects conception rights, even if marriage is unnecessary to conceive. It’s very important that it continues to protect conception rights.
Everyone that is capable of conceiving has that right and you’re correct I wouldn’t be open to banning same sex conception although I’d accept that we should discourage it if unhealthy babies were a common result. Even brothers and sisters aren’t banned from conceiving and denying them the right to marry doesn’t change that, hence your argument that marriage provides societal approval for conception is refuted.
Pure ridiculousness, but logically necessary effects of same-sex marriage. Brothers and sisters are put in jail if they have sex, and that’s why they aren’t allowed to marry.
I challange you to give me realisticstep by step cause and effect scenario whereby their marriage would be destroyed by such an act – you can’t do it – the best you can do is some nebulous rhetoric about how the word marriage “means” something different. As to a real world marriage, it remains identical to the way it was.
No, Ted and Alice lose the right to conceive together using their own unmodified genes when that right is equated to using modified genes to conceive. We have to give special respect to the rightness of a man and woman marrying and procreating together, equating their right to siblings or same-sex couples demeans and destroys their right and the core meaning of marriage.
John said “If we allow same-sex conception, then certainly we should allow same-sex marriage,”.
We should allow equal marriage regardless of whether or not we discourage same sex conception.
No, we should allow it only if we allow same-sex conception.
There is no supportable basis for denying gay couples the right to marry. The only basis for denying gay couples the right to conceive is if the offspring is likely to be unhealthy – on that we agee. Beyond that you have no case.
And you would say that that gay couple is equal to Ted and Alice’s marriage, right? So you would say that if Ted and Alice were likely to produce unhealthy offspring, we should deny them the right to conceive too, right? You equate them, right?
It is you who’s trying to deny people both the right to marry and to conceive, if anyone’s motivated by animosity or jealousy its obviously you.
Well, animosity against Nazi eugenicists is certainly called for. And I think lots of couples having babies naturally, from their own genes, would feel jealous of people who were producing lab created babies that had superior health, intelligence, beauty, etc. I’m not trying to stop anyone from conceiving, I’m trying to protect everyone’s right to use their own genes. The only way to do that is prohibit using modified genes. Same-sex couples will have to acquire kids the ways they do now.
That’s just crazy talk again. Would you say its far better to not have a health care industry that needs to be regulated? Give your head a shake.
It depends on the industry. I would say it would be better to not have a genetic engineering industry at all.
The only possible benefit to not allowing same sex conception is the prevention of unhealthy babies. If that is not a problem there are no benifts to disallowing same sex conception.
No man, banning genetic engineering and same-sex marriage will resolve the marriage debate, enable equal protections via CU’s, stop the Jihad against the US, save tons of money and energy, preserve everyone’s reproductive rights…you’ve denied these already I know, but offered no evidence to show I’m wrong.
John said “What is the need? I haven’t seen anyone complaining that they are unable to have children with someone of their same sex.”.
I on the other hand have known many same sex couples who would like to conceive their own genetic offspring. If it can be done safely it would be immoral to deny them a right everyone else has.
Thanks again for admitting the unspoken secret demand. It can’t be done safely, and eve if it could, it shouldn’t be allowed. It’s unsustainable and a huge offensive waste. There is no need, even if there is an irrational want. What is the NEED?
As to cost, that will be born by the people using it – who are you to deny them the right to spend their money as they see fit?!
No it won’t, it’ll become an entitlement that tax payers have to pay for. We already pay for the research. No couple will foot their full share of the bill even if they wanted to.
As to “harming rights”, that’s some profound Orwellian double-speak you’ve got going there. It is YOU who wants to deny people the right to marry and conceive. NO gays are trying to deny anyone else those rights, or any other rights. YOU’RE the one seeking to harm rights.
No, I want to protect everyone’s right to conceive with their own unmodified genes, with a person of their choice, with only certain types of relationships off limits. I want to prohibit people from procreating with someone of the same sex, not prohibit them from procreating at all.
Its a scary step you want to take. Once you allow the government to license conception what’s to stop them from further restricting the right to conceive.
We do need to be vigilant that the government doesn’t start making risk-based assessments of who can marry whom. We need to remember the principles that the Supreme Court has established that procreation is a basic civil right of man, and only some reasons are supportable. There should be no further changes to who one is allowed to marry, once we add people of the same sex.
Pretty soon it’ll be only people with above average intelligence will be given a license to conceive. Then poor people will be denied the right to conceive, then maybe if you’re the wrong religion, political party, or an atheist you’ll be denied a license to conceive. You want to take a step towards an unmitigated social disaster. No way should we ever let the government dictate who can have children and who can’t. Its NEVER been done and NEVER should be.
That’s what will happen if we separate conception rights from marriage and “discourage” couples from having children if they would produce unhealthy offspring. The only way to preserve everyone’s conception rights is to prohibit genetic engineering and same-sex marriage.
posted by priya Lynn on
John said “those aren’t the claims I am referring to. What you don’t deny are my claims that it will mean allowing same-sex conception, and/or that it will mean denying that marriages have conception rights.”.
Wrong. I’ve never said that marriages don’t have conception rights, I’ve been very clear and said exactly the opposite – both married and unmarried couples have conception rights. STOP LYING.
John said “Billions will be diverted from health care
–It’ll definitely cost Billions, and that will have to come from somewhere. Even if we maintained health care spending and financed same-sex conception by raiding NASA’s budget, it will still divert the researchers and facilities away from medical research, because those resources aren’t transferable like money is, those are specialized researchers and there are only so many of them.”.
Nonsense. For starters, you don’t have the cost estimates to say it will “definitely” cost billions. Further, regardless of what it costs it will be paid for by the users of the technology – it won’t be developed if there isn’t seen to be a profit incentive in it. It will divert nothing from health care.
John said “Society gives consent to have children through marriage.
–It does. You don’t need it, but it always has and always should.”.
Nonsense. There is no penalty for having children outside of marriage. You acknowledge the truth when you say you don’t need it – any time you don’t need someone’s approval they are not giving you consent to do anything. Consent is only necessary when someone has the ability to prevent you from doing something.
John said “Same sex marriages are the same as marriages between close relatives.
None of them should not be allowed to conceive children together.”.
That’s just stupid. The typical gay couple is not related in anyway and there is no similarity to a marriage between them and a marriage between close relatives. We may prevent close relatives from marrying, but we don’t prevent them from conceiving together. The reasons why we discourage close relatives from conceiving don’t apply to same sex couples assuming the technology can be made safe.
John said “There are problems with family cohesion in gay marriages.
I was referring to the reason we ban incest, which is not just to prevent birth defects but also other reasons. The point was that there can be many reasons to prohibit certain relationships.”.
And you’ve not given any reason for prohibiting same sex relationships while every major mental and physical health organization agrees that same sex relationships are a healthy choice for gay couples and one that society best encourage and support.
John said “Allowing gays to marry and conceive will prevent you from believing marriage provides conception rights.
–Well, if we allow same-sex conception, we should definitely allow same-sex marriage, and such a situation wouldn’t strip conception rights from marriage, but it would imply that the right to use modified genes is equivalent to the right to use unmodified genes, which strips everyone of the right to use their unmodified gametes, because it asserts that the right to use unmodified genes is not special, and is fulfilled by use of modified genes.”.
That’s some of the most messed up “logic” I’ve ever seen – you’re twisted. That’s like saying if we allow people to drive Toyotas it strips everyone of the right to drive Chevys – utter and profound nonsense.
John said “There is a negative financial cost to allowing gays to marry.
To conceive, yes, and that’s what allowing same-sex marriage allows. Civil Unions like I propose would have a small financial cost, in the form of federal survivor benefits, but it would be a trivial amount, and worth paying both morally and pragmatically.”
The cost of such conceptions would be paid for by the users of the technology – its none of yours nor the governments business how people spend their income. You don’t have an argument here. You want the government to dictate how people can spend their hard earned cash – only the lunatic fringe is going to ever agree to that.
John said “There is a negative environmental impact if gays are allowed to marry.
Again, to conceive, yes. A tremendous environmental impact.”.
Nonsense. There is no more environmental impact to allowing gays to conceive than there is to allowing straights to conceive. If you want to make the argument that the world is overpopulated, I’m sympathetic, but that being the case everyone has to equally share the burden of cutting back on the number of children, we can’t morally create a system where only the elites are allowed to have children. EVERYONE MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.
posted by Priya Lynn on
John said “Gay people conceiving will harm someone’s dignity.
It strips everyone of their sexual identity, it says it doesn’t matter, when for so many people, it totally matters to them that they are a man or a woman.”.
Preposterous. You’re trying to tell me that if gays are allowed to concieve you’ll stop perceiving yourself as a man, that it won’t matter to you that you are male. Bullshit – no one believes that. What another person does isn’t going to affect how any individual sees themselves or the importance they attach to it. Drooling adolescent boys are still going to go slackjawed at the sight of a pretty girl – gays conceiving will never stop that.
John said “Someone will lose the right to conceive if gays are allowed to conceive.
It would open the door to genetic engineering which would have a big psychological impact on people’s perceived right to use their own genes rather than improved one, and it would imply that there is no special right to use your own genes.”.
Once again, that’s like saying if you allow people to drive Cadillacs that will imply there’s no right to drive a chevy – preposterous, the real world doesn’t work that way. Further, there is nothing saying engineered genes will be “improved”, in fact all the evidence to date suggests just the opposite, that such genes are inferior as we’ve seen the offspring from cloning to this point are always inferior with short life spans and a vast array of medical problems.
John said “There are many reasons besides risk to the baby to deny gays the right to conceive.
Right, cost, environment, loss of rights, etc.”.
Cost is born by the users of the technology, you don’t have the right to deny them the right to spend their money as they choose; there are no envionmental costs to the offspring of gays that don’t also apply to the offspring of straights – if you consider children a bad thing then you must equally oppose straights having children; there is no loss of rights if gays conceive -IT IS YOU WHO IS PROPOSING THE DENIAL OF RIGHTS TO PEOPLE, NOT ME.
John said “It is a terrible and radical change to marriage to deny that it gives a consent by society to have children.”.
I said “LOL, it doesn’t change marriage in anyway. No couple has ever been denied the right to concieve simply because they weren’t married.”
John said “I am talking about the assent by society to procreate together that all marriages have. Billions of couples have been denied the right to conceive together because they weren’t married.”.
Bullshit! Society has never been able to prevent people from conceiving outside of marriage – IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME! There is no penalty for conceiving outside of marriage in your country.
John said “People have never been allowed to screw another man’s wife. “.
Of course they have, it happens all the time and that’s a different issue altogether – just because society frowns on adultery doesn’t mean unmarried couples don’t have the right to conceive.
John said “It’s true people have often gotten away with consensual illicit sex, and in this country, it feels like a God given right, but in Egypt, its a capital crime to this day, and we used to jail and fine people here, too. It still isn’t a right, we just act like it is, because we have paternity tests now, and deadbeat dad laws, and the Pill, and legitimacy rulings and repeals that make a man married to every woman he has a child with, but only if he has a child. If not, he owes her nothing. But even that big change to how we deal with sex rights 40 years ago never changed the fact that all marriages are allowed to conceive together, marriage approved and condoned and legitimated having children together.”.
Once again, adultery is a seperate issue, just because society frowns on adultery doesn’t deny the fact that unmarried couples have the right to have children together. It’ll be a said and disturbing day when you need a license to perform a function central to the survival of the human race. And I have never disagreed with you that married couples have the right to conceive together, so stop ranting about it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
John said “Never before has there been a marriage that was prohibited from having children, with the couple’s own genes, but now you deny that they have the right!”.
I said “I never said any such thing – you’re crazy. All couples have the right to have children – no one is denied that right, married, single, brother/sister, and so on.”
John said “Hah, now you’re claiming incest is a right too? So let’s see, you have now claimed a right to do same-sex conception, said “And yes I do deny that marriage gives a consent by society to have children”, and now, you add that a brother and sister have a right to have children together! The Trifecta! It is really demeaning to marriage to equate their right to have children to a brother and sister’s right, or a same-sex couple’s. Reeks of jealousy and vindictiveness.”.
You’re trying to change the subject. You claimed I said denied that married couples have the right to procreate with their own genes – that was a lie and you should be a big enough man to acknowledge it. As to jealousy and vindictivenous, if I were trying to deny married couples the right to life you’d have a point. I am not. It is you who is attempting to deny people the right to procreate – jealousy and vindictiveness describes your motivations perfectly.
John said “And you deny that marriage protects conception rights”.
I said “If there was any truth to that, there’d be cases where unmarried couples were denied the right to conceive – that’s never happened. This is a figment of your imagination.”
John said “First of all, there have been billions of such cases”.
Preposterous, every unmarried couple that has wanted to conceive and been fertile has done so. If I remember correctly the out-of wedlock birthrate in the States approaches 50% – you’re living in a dream world if you think any unmarried couple’s been denied the right to conceive.
John said “second, no, it’s not necessary. Marriage can and does still protects conception rights, even if marriage is unnecessary to conceive. It’s very important that it continues to protect conception rights.”.
I agree the right to conceive must be protected. That’s why your proposal to use the force of law to strip procreation rights from some people for the first time in the history of the planet is a dangerous step that must be avoided at all costs. Once society takes such an evil step no one is safe.
I said “Everyone that is capable of conceiving has that right and you’re correct I wouldn’t be open to banning same sex conception although I’d accept that we should discourage it if unhealthy babies were a common result. Even brothers and sisters aren’t banned from conceiving and denying them the right to marry doesn’t change that, hence your argument that marriage provides societal approval for conception is refuted.”
John said “Pure ridiculousness, but logically necessary effects of same-sex marriage. Brothers and sisters are put in jail if they have sex, and that’s why they aren’t allowed to marry.”.
LOL, let’s have some examples of brothers and sisters being jailed for having sex where it wasn’t a case of an adult performing statutory rape on a child. Once again, you’re just making shit up.
I said “I challenge you to give me realistic step by step cause and effect scenario whereby their marriage would be destroyed by such an act – you can’t do it – the best you can do is some nebulous rhetoric about how the word marriage “means” something different. As to a real world marriage, it remains identical to the way it was.”
John said “No, Ted and Alice lose the right to conceive together using their own unmodified genes when that right is equated to using modified genes to conceive.”.
Nonsense. Once again, that’s like saying Joe loses his right to drive a Chevy when that right is equated to the right to drive a Toyata – absolute, unmittigated Bullshit.
John said “We have to give special respect to the rightness of a man and woman marrying and procreating together, equating their right to siblings or same-sex couples demeans and destroys their right and the core meaning of marriage.”.
Millions of species have survied and procreated without “special respect”. The sex drive is one of the strongest motivations people experience, the planet is bursting at the seems with people, people society tries to deprive of “special respect” for having children (unmarried couples) are having children at a profound rate. Society isn’t going to die out if we don’t give people “special respect” for something they’ve got an irresistable drive to do anyway. Further, NOTHING is stopping you from giving special respect to married heterosexual couples just because gay couples conceive and get married.
John said “If we allow same-sex conception, then certainly we should allow same-sex marriage,”.
I said “We should allow equal marriage regardless of whether or not we discourage same sex conception.”
John said “No, we should allow it only if we allow same-sex conception.”.
There is no valid reason do deny gay couples the right to marry. It does not affect any opposite sex couple’s marriage in anyway. The idea that becase Fred and John get married Ted and Alice are going to say “we’d better not have children, and in fact we’d better get divorced” is absurd in the extreme – it’ll never happen.
I said “There is no supportable basis for denying gay couples the right to marry. The only basis for denying gay couples the right to conceive is if the offspring is likely to be unhealthy – on that we agee. Beyond that you have no case.”
posted by Priya Lynn on
John said “And you would say that that gay couple is equal to Ted and Alice’s marriage, right?”.
Yes.
John said “So you would say that if Ted and Alice were likely to produce unhealthy offspring, we should deny them the right to conceive too, right? You equate them, right?”.
No, I wouldn’t deny them the right to conceive, what I said is that would be a case that someone might make, but certainly not me. Its a dangerous slippery slope when we take the unprecidented step of singling out groups of people to deny them the most fundamental aspect of human survival – I am against doing that under any circumstances.
I said “It is you who’s trying to deny people both the right to marry and to conceive, if anyone’s motivated by animosity or jealousy its obviously you.”.
John said “Well, animosity against Nazi eugenicists is certainly called for.”
We weren’t talking about Nazi eugenicists, try to stay on topic, that’s irrelavent. You were displaying animosity and jealousy towards gay couples, I was not displaying that towards straight couples as you falsely claimed.
John said “And I think lots of couples having babies naturally, from their own genes, would feel jealous of people who were producing lab created babies that had superior health, intelligence, beauty, etc.”.
As previously stated, the experience todate says that the genes produced from such technologies are inferior, rather than superior. Further, you’re conflating two seperate and distinct proposed technologies. The technolgies proposed to allow same sex couples to conceive use the individuals own genes that are not modified for superior health, intelligence, beauty and so on. The technologies that would do that are inconceivably far in the future and that is an entirely seperate debate from the one of same sex couples procreating.
John said “I’m not trying to stop anyone from conceiving,”.
BUT YOU ARE!!!STOP LYING! YOU’VE REPEATEDLY STATED YOU WANT TO STOP SAME SEX COUPLES FROM CONCEIVING.
John said “I’m trying to protect everyone’s right to use their own genes. The only way to do that is prohibit using modified genes.”
No one is eroding the right of any couple to use their own genes to conceive. The idea that they would is absolutely insane. This is just an excuse for you to pretend your bigotry is not bigotry – that’s obvious.
John said “Same-sex couples will have to acquire kids the ways they do now.”.
Maybe they will, and maybe they won’t – that remains yet to be seen.
John said “That’s just crazy talk again. Would you say its far better to not have a health care industry that needs to be regulated? Give your head a shake.”
John said “It depends on the industry. I would say it would be better to not have a genetic engineering industry at all.”.
Once again, you’re conflating the process by which the existing genes of same sex couples are modified to permit conception with the proposed process to modify genes to provide particular desirable characteristics – they are not one in the same, one does not automatically lead to the other and I think you no this, but you cling to your false claims because you want a facade of legitimacy to cover what is simply maked bigotry, hatred, and jealousy.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I said “The only possible benefit to not allowing same sex conception is the prevention of unhealthy babies. If that is not a problem there are no benifts to disallowing same sex conception.”
John said “No man, banning genetic engineering and same-sex marriage will resolve the marriage debate, enable equal protections via CU’s, stop the Jihad against the US, save tons of money and energy, preserve everyone’s reproductive rights…you’ve denied these already I know, but offered no evidence to show I’m wrong.”
I’m a woman, not a man. Genetic engineering has no relevance to the marriage debate. Same sex marriage is banned in many states now and that most certainly hasn’t resolved the marriage debate and it would make just as much sense to say allowing same sex marriage would resolve the debate. As is proven in Brown versus the board of education, seperate but equal is not equal. If you truly believed in giving gays equal rights you’d have no problem with giving them marriage. You want to deny them this because you see marriage as being superior to civil unions, if you didn’t you’d have no problems with calling it the same thing. As to saving money and energy, it is the money of the users of the technology, you have no right to deny them the right to spend it as they wish – let the free market decide, to do otherwise is to put capitalism at risk. As to “preserving everyone’s reproductive rights”, I’m tired of that sick joke of yours. In one breath you falsely claim to want that, in the next breath you rant about singling out gays specifically to deny them reproductive rights – you most certainly don’t want to preserve everyone’s reproductive rights. I do, YOU DON’T.
John said “What is the need? I haven’t seen anyone complaining that they are unable to have children with someone of their same sex.”.
I said “I on the other hand have known many same sex couples who would like to conceive their own genetic offspring. If it can be done safely it would be immoral to deny them a right everyone else has.”
John said “Thanks again for admitting the unspoken secret demand.”.
Uh, duh, I stated it clearly, its not an unspoken secret demand.
John said “It can’t be done safely,”.
OH, excuse me mister genetic engineering expert, where did you study and when did you get you’re Nobel prize in the field?! Only a fool would claim to make a prediction like that.
John said “and eve if it could, it shouldn’t be allowed. It’s unsustainable and a huge offensive waste. There is no need, even if there is an irrational want. What is the NEED?”.
You’ve provided no reasons why it shouldn’t be allowed, and the one reason you might have (unhealthy babies) you’ve denied as important. You’re motivated solely by hatred and bigotry, that’s clear. As to the need, I’ve explained it to you repeatedly, its the same need that heteroesexual couples have to have their own children. Once you deny this right to one group of people you endanger it for all peoples.
I said “As to cost, that will be born by the people using it – who are you to deny them the right to spend their money as they see fit?!”
John said “No it won’t, it’ll become an entitlement that tax payers have to pay for.”.
Nonsense, couples seeking existing fertility treatments pay for it all themselves, this will be no different.
John said “We already pay for the research. No couple will foot their full share of the bill even if they wanted to.”.
No the governement does not pay for the research, private companies that hope to make a profit off of such treaments pay for it in the hopes of futhre profits. People pay insurance companies to provide these services.
I said “As to “harming rights”, that’s some profound Orwellian double-speak you’ve got going there. It is YOU who wants to deny people the right to marry and conceive. NO gays are trying to deny anyone else those rights, or any other rights. YOU’RE the one seeking to harm rights.”
John said “No, I want to protect everyone’s right to conceive with their own unmodified genes, with a person of their choice, with only certain types of relationships off limits.”.
You contradictied yourself in the same sentence. When you want to put certain relationships off limits you are not trying to protect EVERYONE’S right to conceive. There is no threat whatsoever to anyone’s right to conceive. Only the most delusional conspiracy theoriest would come up with such an insane idea. Clearly you don’t believe this yourself, its just a cheap excuse to cover your desire to oppress gay people. Your hatred is naked and you’re not fooling anyone.
John said “I want to prohibit people from procreating with someone of the same sex, not prohibit them from procreating at all.”.
Finally the truth comes out, you hate gay couples and you’ll do anything you can to try and force them into heteroesexual relationships.
I said “Its a scary step you want to take. Once you allow the government to license conception what’s to stop them from further restricting the right to conceive.”
We do need to be vigilant that the government doesn’t start making risk-based assessments of who can marry whom.”.
Rather ironic that you’re worried about that, but not about them defining entire classes of people to whom we deny marriage for no good reason. The fact is that once you cross that line and say the government can restrict marriage to the elites you put everyone’s marriage at risk. But you’re too dumb to realize that and as long as its the group you hate your okay with denying them their rights.
John said “We need to remember the principles that the Supreme Court has established that procreation is a basic civil right of man, and only some reasons are supportable. There should be no further changes to who one is allowed to marry, once we add people of the same sex.”.
Yes, let’s agree to adding same sex couples to the list of people who can marry. As to their being no further changes, while I can’t think of any needed ones off the top of my head I would never say changes should be outlawed as there may be unforseen future circumstances that make further changes desirable.
I said “Pretty soon it’ll be only people with above average intelligence will be given a license to conceive. Then poor people will be denied the right to conceive, then maybe if you’re the wrong religion, political party, or an atheist you’ll be denied a license to conceive. You want to take a step towards an unmitigated social disaster. No way should we ever let the government dictate who can have children and who can’t. Its NEVER been done and NEVER should be.”
John said “That’s what will happen if we separate conception rights from marriage and “discourage” couples from having children if they would produce unhealthy offspring.”.
The right to conceive has long predated the institution of marriage and society has thrived. Marriage has always been seperate from the right to conceive, the two are only joined in your mind. Once you dismiss the health of offspring as a concern you have no valid reason whatsoever to deny anyone the right to conceive.
John said “The only way to preserve everyone’s conception rights is to prohibit genetic engineering and same-sex marriage.”.
Neither threatens anyone’s conception rights as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated, and for the umpteenth time YOU’VE REPEATEDLY STATED YOU OPPOSE SOME PEOPLE’S CONCEPTION RIGHTS – YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT “EVERYONE’S” CONCEPTION RIGHTS. YOU ARE WORKING AGAINST THAT VERY CONCEPT.
Prohibiting the technology to allow gay couples to conceive and same sex marriage doesn’t preserve the right to conceive any more than prohibiting blacks from driving and prohibiting them from marrying protects everyone’s right to drive.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I read the article and some of the comments here. I gave up on the lengthy tennis match between John Howard and Priya Lynn. I used to engage in such exchanges on blogs but I’ve come to believe that it is a complete waste of time. Neither side will convince the other and few if any will EVER take the time to read them all. They become, frankly, little more than a pissing match between two parties; nothing gets resolved.
Nevertheless, I have come to a conclusion. You cannot be in favor of this:
“Same-sex couples should be like siblings, in that they are prohibited from attempting to procreate together, because it would be unethical and unwise. It is far better to preserve everyone’s equal conception rights and preserve natural conception by a man and a woman as the only way people are created.” – John Howard
And this:
“All marriages should be allowed to have children together, and all people should be allowed to marry, with only certain generic relationships being prohibited that apply to everyone equally and have a supportable basis. Being of the same sex as someone else is a relationship, and there is a supportable basis to prohibit that relationship from attempting to conceive.” – John Howard
But also claim this:
“I in fact envision and am working for precisely the opposite: a world where everyone has an equal right to have children, and government does NOT decide who can and cannot have children. And my proposal wouldn’t make it so you need a license to conceive, it would merely protect the right of married couples to conceive together, while you deny that married couples have the right to have children together. You want government to decide who can and cannot have children together based on a eugenic assessment of risk and genetic qualities, which is Orwellian, Huxlian, Gattacan, etc. Wanting to preserve natural conception and equal conception rights is none of those.” – John Howard
And remain consistent.
By the way, married couples already have the “right” to procreate in the United States, as do unmarried couples of legal majority. So you would be attempting to establish something that already exists. A bit redundant, akin to those who pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in states where same-sex marriage is already illegal. I should add, due to your lack of clarity, you appear to be suggesting that siblings or otherwise relatives would be allowed to procreate.
Unless, of course, you are suggesting that ONLY married couples can procreate, certainly Orwellian and would most definitely require all manner of intrusive regulations and enforcement which you, also, seem to oppose. Even more Orwellian still, there would need to be a laundry list of conditions which must be met in order for a couple to qualify for marriage to each other. In any event, the outcome would certainly be for “government to decide who can and cannot have children together based on a eugenic assessment of risk and genetic qualities”. Something which you seem to oppose… Extremely confusing.
To my main point, I find it a red herring to continue to treat marriage as if it is solely for the purposes of procreation. You might, -might- be able to make such an argument in a historical (albeit a rather ancient one) context, but this is no longer the case today. To those who want marriage to be solely for the purposes of procreation, they at the very least need to show consistency in this belief and endorse denying or annulling legal marriage to those who cannot, will not, or do not procreate within a certain period of time in their marriage.
My personal belief is that “marriage” should be performed by religious institutions and have no legal authority whatsoever, and, therefore, can be denied or granted on whatever basis the institution chooses. Civil Unions, on the other hand, should be legally sanctioned by government institutions, providing legal protections and/or benefits, and in keeping with egalitarian principles, be applied evenly without the sort of discrimination we’ve seen in the past and today, e.g. anti-miscegenation and anti-same-sex marriage laws.
Until this is achieved, which I’m certain is a very, very long time off, same-sex couples should not be denied “marriage”. It should go without saying but sadly must still be said: Separate is not equal.