Kris Mineau Comes "Out of the Closet" in Iowa
Where Oh Where Has Our Homophobe Gone, Oh Where Oh Where Can He Be...?
Just two days after Ethan Jacob's BayWindows article, "Silence of the 'Phobes" which talks about the uneasy silence and shift of focus coming from Massachusetts equality foes and bigoted gadflies, Massachusetts Family Institute spokesperson Kris Mineau appears in an Associated Press story story about the Iowa Marriage Decision.
The AP story goes on to say, "On Friday, Romney discussed the matter in a private conference call with Iowa House Republican Leader Christopher Rants, who has endorced Romney, and Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which worked on gay marriage issues in Massachusetts."
Mittler Romney said later that day that he "would renew his calls to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage" and said "that's essential to our future."
And I guess it was important to Mittler to consult the one man whose attempt to stop Marriage Equality in Massachusetts was "all potatoes and no meat" as that sort of issue-based campaigning has proven effective before for the uber-conservatives. Kris Mineau as you remember used his spin " a groundswell of support to stop same-sex marriage" to dupe, fraud and mis-inform Massachusetts voters and we all suspect that he will be doing it again (at least in an advisory position) in other states such as Oregon.
You should be outraged! Read this AP article again. It is easy to hate Mitt Romney, Kris Mineau and and the other reprehensible "conservatives" and Republicans. But take a closer look at what the Democrats have to say. Hillary Clinton was evidently the first to offer a reaction to the Iowa decision on of all things, "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" and instead of applauding the decision in Iowa for Equal Rights, she gave her support for civil unions "with full equality of benefits." So, if Hillary Clinton is elected, "benefits" will get equality but gays and lesbians won't. Come on Mary Breslauer (who I think may have come up with that stupid phrasing), you can do better than that! LGBT people are not idiots and you are more Uncle Tom than Karl Rove.
Let the games begin.
Tom Lang, Director KnowThyNeighbor
Lula and John, if you are truly fighting "to have our monogamous relationships legally recognized", then you should support my proposal that would give same-sex civil unions federal recognition and make it possible to enact civil unions in every state in the country, including ones that put bans on unions that are substantially similar to marriage.
The difference would be that these civil unions would not grant conception rights, they would be defined to be exactly like marriage in every respect except would not grant the marriage the right to conceive children together, using their own gametes.
At the same time, Congress would stop genetic engineering and cloning by enacting a law that prohibited conceiving children any other way than combining a man's sperm and a woman's egg, and preserve the right of every marriage to conceive using their own gametes.
I think that we can get this done very quickly, this term, before Christmas, if KTN put its energy into it. It comes down to what the priorities are of KTN: Equal protections via civil unions, or a right to attempt same-sex conception that would come with marriage?
Please don't be cavalier about the dangers of allowing same-sex conception, or the dangers of stripping conception rights from everyone's marriage. It is not worth it!
Posted by: John Howard | September 13, 2007 at 10:12 PM
HAHAHA! well, well, well. Hello there Mr. Howard. taking a break from the ol' egg and spermo site I see. I must confess you DO have some interesting blog topics of which I've posted on the most recent one. Yes, mr. Howard, I do believe Kaguya is quite still alive and doing very well these days. LMAO! Quite interesting too when you consider that she was PERFECTLY normal in every aspect. Ahhhhh....the miracle of stem cell research. Know you know the REAL reason why all the staunch right wing fuddy duddies want this research banned! Keep up the ahhh...errr "interesting" site ya got going there Mr. Howard. I DEFINITELY look forward to countering your many false blog statements and accusations. ;-)
Posted by: musclehippy | September 14, 2007 at 04:34 PM
"Please don't be cavalier about the dangers of allowing same-sex conception, or the dangers of stripping conception rights from everyone's marriage. It is not worth it!"
I don't want you think I am cavalier about it, but the fact is, I just don't give a flying fuck about it.
You are completely BATSHIT INSANE.
Nothing you say makes one bit of sense.
You are a complete and utter MORON!
Posted by: John | September 14, 2007 at 04:38 PM
Hi musclehippy, thanks for commenting on my blog, and thanks for being so forthcoming about your hope for same-sex conception.
Note that the Egg and Sperm law wouldn't ban stem cell research, only attempting to conceive children that are not from a man's sperm and a woman's egg. So cloning embryos for research work is not attempting to crate a child, so it wouldn't be affected. That's actually why some fuddy-duddies aren't supporting it, because it doesn't also stop research cloning. They also don't support the compromise because they don't like civil unions, even if they are distinct from marriage.
But luckily this only has to get past the extremists, the fuddy-duddies and the radical gay activists, and be picked up on by the middle, the 80% that think gay couples deserve equal protections and that genetic research for designer babies is a foolish waste of money and should be stopped.
Will you be terribly disappointed if you and your partner weren't allowed to hire a lab to create your own children, musclehippy? Have you seen the muscular mice they've created? Maybe you want children like that? You really won't be happy adopting or having a baby with a lesbian couple, or hiring a surrogate? Love makes a family, musclehippy, and since it would be really unsafe and unethical and might never be possible anyhow, why don't you get with the program and change your demands to equal protections now, so that more couples actually get some security and benefits. It's foolish to say you'd rather have Kaguya babies (that means you'd have to hire 300 women to gestate all the embryos just to maybe get one kid to survive).
Posted by: John Howard | September 14, 2007 at 05:11 PM
I think Musclehippy has made a new friend. ;)
Mr. Howard, just for the record I did advocate for your re-admitance on BMG, I just did not do it publicly. You seem very strange and moreso in person. If anything it is to my advantage to have people like you and [redacted] as vocal opponents. I count on people seeing what I see in the two of you.
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 14, 2007 at 05:52 PM
Hey John, just for the record, what's your position on same-sex conception? Do you insist on there being a right to do it? Probably, I'm guessing. Why not be upfront about it?
And you seemed blandly normal in person, totally unimpressive and pathetic and forgettable. Straight, even. But you were in your element, where you ought to have been in full plumage. I was surrounded by thousands of people who hate me, on both sides of the street. You try acting normal.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 02:27 AM
Ahhh...poor Mr. Howard. If only you and your kind only realized just how pivotal you are to our civil rights struggle! LOL! Although this really isn't the forum to discuss the in depth intracacies of SSP I would like very much to "counter" a few of your "claims" concerning SSP. 1) "Will you be terribly dissapointed if you and your partner were'nt allowed to hire a lab to create your own children". Yup! Actually I would be. However, when one has to deal with the preponderance of hetero ignorance one can expect such denials to us and our community. That's why bigots like you and Mr. Jameison are in fact SO important to our civil rights struggle whether you realize it or not. =)). 2) Have you seen the muscular mouse they've created?" Nope. I have'nt actually but I'm now delighted to know that my childhood hero has now become a reality. GO MIGHTY MOUSE!! 3) "maybe you want children like that?". My partner and I want A SON(one child only thank you)who will be healthy and free of all genetically inherited diseases Mr. Howard. Whether or not you and the right wing can fully grasp the miracalous wonder of genetic research to FINALLY rid human society of diseases like muscular dystrophy, obesity, cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia, ect,ect, ect...is not really ANY concern of mine. It's just another facet of your obvious ignorance on the topic. There's nothing morally wrong with two humans wanting to produce their own offspring Mr. Howard and no, it's not "eugenically" UNethical. It becomes UNethical when you start to weed out genetic traits like eye color, height, IQ level, ect,ect,ect. Children Of Men are NOT designer babies Mr. Howard. 4) "You really won't be happy adopting or having a baby with a lesbian couple, or hiring a surrogate?". I guess I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this statement. If you're referring to utilizing an ACTUAL female egg to combine with my sperm, well, I guess that defeats the WHOLE procedure of SSP now does'nt it. No, I'm talkin' about Male/Male procreation here Mr. Howard. As for hiring a surrogate to bear the child well, yahhhhhhh. Geesh. Whether or not that woman is a lesbian or hetero does'nt matter much to me as long as she's drug free, healthy and can provide a clean, suitable environment(uterus) for our son to develop in. In time we'll be able to utilize the technology of EBI(External Birth Incubators) to provide a "uteral" like environment which mimicks an actual female uterus! I can explain this concept more in detail if you wish. 5) "Why don't you get with the program and change your demands to equal protections, so that more couples actually get some security and benefits." Well, ahhh actually I have been with the "program" for quite some time now Mr. Howard. It's called FULL equality and NO I'm not about to change my "demands". Civil Unions are NOT an acceptable alternative. They were concocted by ignorant, elitist heteros who get off on hogging all the power and status! Soooo, no, I'm not even considering changing my "demands" for you or anyone else. I prefer the view from the front of the bus Mr. Howard. a view which I feel grants security AND benefits ALL gay/lesbian couples. =)). 6) "It's foolish to say you'd rather have Kaguya babies(that means you'd have to hire 300 women to gestate all the embryos just to maybe get one kid to survive)." First off, Mr. Howard, the experiment you're referring to which produced Kaguya was with two FEMALE EGG CELLS! Using a technique which manipulated the imprinting portion of genes to "trick" a egg cell into behaving like a male sperm cell. I foresee the technique of female/female procreation though very difficult will eventually become much more streamlined and efficient. Now, on the subject of Male/Male procreation I hypothesize will be MUCH more easier simply for the fact that males contain BOTH Y and X chromosomes. In essence we males, through stem cell technology, can create BOTH sperm AND egg cells! In which case all it would entail would be a simple fertilization pairing. Although we males can produce BOTH Male and female offspring we must produce ONLY male sons in order to keep The Balance. The Balance meaning the fairly equal ratio of male to female because women only possess double X chromosomes therefore they can only produce female daughters. Now, whether or not this whole SSP technique can even work between humans is an ENTIRELY different subject. It just may be that it CAN'T be possible! If in fact that is the case then, fine, we'll deal with it somehow. True it would be a big dissapointment, not just for me but for a multitude of gay/lesbian couples. To the best of my knowledge Human SSP has never been accomplished yet. However, I place a VAST amount of trust in scientific progress that WILL eventually see SSP become a reality! Now I have to start saving my pennies so I can afford to breed. ;-P
Posted by: musclehippy | September 15, 2007 at 06:32 AM
"...what's your position on same-sex conception? Do you insist on there being a right to do it? "
While we await John Hosty-Grinnells feedback let me go on record.
People have the right to do ANYTHING they want, provided there is no law against it. AND. If the government want to proscribe anything it must prove that their law is necessary. Now here is the important point.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS NOT GERMANE TO THE CONVERSION.
It makes not one bit of difference if 75% of the people believe same-sex procreation to be wrong.
The right to privacy established by Griswold, etc. absolutely GUARANTEES that the "right" already exists.
If you don't like it, the burden is on you to prove to the legislature first and then the court, that the government has a compelling interest in violating my right.
So, you see, I'm not really saying whether I think SSP is good bad or indifferent.
What I say is the individual must be free to decide and choose for him/herself.
Posted by: John | September 15, 2007 at 06:46 AM
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS NOT GERMANE TO THE CONVERSION.
I mean of course, CONVERSATION.
Posted by: John | September 15, 2007 at 06:52 AM
Mr. Howard, my position is that genetic testing must be done for the good of humanity, but acting on that testing should not be done until we know it is safe.
I do not now nor have I ever understood how you marry the idea of genetics experimentation and same sex couples having equal rights. To me the two have nothing in common and no amount of clarification on your part has made your point with me. Sorry, I just don't get you.
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 15, 2007 at 08:53 AM
JH, i think he's trying to imply that if SSP becomes a reality than SSM rights and benefits will come flowing over us all like a mystical flood river. LOL! This individual is obviously just trying to attack the SSM issue from another angle. His thinking: ban SSP and thus gays/lesbians will NEVER have THAT avenue to utilize in our struggle for SSM rights and recognition. It's all so very obvious when you look at it logically. I myself feel this dope is attacking from the completely WRONG angle but hey, if it floats his boat right. heh,heh,heh. Heteros have NEVER understood the TRUE miracle of procreation simply because life for them is SO CHEAP! Case in point: OVERPOPULATION! If the brainless hetero majority gave one flying f__k about human life then why do they squander it so needlessly?!? Heteros like our dear Mr. Jameison and Mr. Howard are only truly concerned about one thing and ONE thing only and it shuuuure aint about "saving" the poor children. LOL! methinks it's more about PRESERVING status qou!
Posted by: musclehippy | September 15, 2007 at 09:48 AM
I am not trying to attack SSM through SSP, in fact I support SSM if we allow SSP, which we do. I am trying to stop SSP and also preserve conception rights for all marriages and the right of all people to marry. I am trying to stop genetic engineering and to keep conception natural for everyone. For the good of humanity, I suggest you read Enough by Bill McKibben.
If you guys really believe that labs should be allowed to create people however they want, with whatever parents they want, and incubate them in whatever machine they want, and that for the good of humanity, we should be doing genetic testing to keep the breeders from having children with genetic diseases, well, thanks for laying it out on the table. Next time someone asks you what you are demanding, don't just say you want hospital visitation and equal benefits. The fact is, you eschew equal benefits and don't care about them, you don't care about same-sex couples in other states or older same-sex couples here that need equal protections. You only want to be allowed to try to have a son with another man. It's sick!
You think human beings are icky. Most of us are just not up to your standards, are we? If only you could design the genomes of everyone and make sure the women had a "clean uterus", hell, forget dirty women, you want the "EBI"! No thoughts whatsoever that human babies might get something special from their mother's womb, hearing her heartbeat, feeling their mother's movements, no, you're ready to bake the thing up like bread - clean bread, though. That's what matters to you?
MH you don't understand imprinting or genetics very well either, if you think that men could make an egg any easier than a woman can make a sperm. Yes, two women can only have daughters and two men can have both, but it won't be any easier for men, and they'll have to use a surrogate or EBI. You really think that men "must produce ONLY male sons in order to keep the Balance?" Whatever happened to that principle of choice? Not very principled, it turns out.
Really you guys - Love Makes A Family, and you should get with that program. You are being used by geneticists and totalitarians see same-sex couples as customers and children as products to sell them. This is bad for humanity. Gay rights and gay dignity is better served by accepting and celebrating the fact that you aren't dirty breeders irresponsibly making children, and not trying to become like hetero couples.
Hosty - you should have had time to figure out what I'm saying. Try harder.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 02:16 PM
I was pleased to read that John Hosty-Grinnell can't follow your logic. It makes me feel good, because John is smarter than me and just knowing he can't follow you either makes me feel better.
I suppose I should be happy that John Howard is in this world. John Howard knows what is best for humanity. We don't need Freedom, Democracy or even Civil Rights. John Howard will take care of everything.
Posted by: John | September 15, 2007 at 02:42 PM
And John (not-Hosty-or-Howard - maybe you need a last name too?), you are right that the will of the people is not germane to the question of allowing genetic engineering or same-sex conception or not, or same-sex marriage, for that matter. I think the idea of "Let the People Vote" is very stupid and dangerous, because in this country, people are so susceptible to marketing and social trends, and so selfish and self-righteous that all we can muster is "why not let everyone do what they want to do?", and so ill-informed about larger issues. I am hoping that Congressmen are still generally well-rounded thoughtful people who believe in human dignity and want to preserve it for posterity, hopefully not all of them are tools of the biotech industry.
They are the ones that should vote. They should vote for equal protections, they should vote for equal conception rights. Equal conception rights means natural conception rights, the right of every person to marry and procreate with their own genes.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 02:55 PM
What part of the logic CAN you follow, John? Show me some good faith effort to try to understand what I am saying, so I can know where to begin explaining it again for you. Is it the part about all marriages should have conception rights, or the part that same-sex couples shouldn't?
And yes, you should be happy that there are people like me that are willing to raise subjects that they think matter, that everyone seems to be ignoring or even censoring. I just hope that people start debating it, and that it gets before Congress.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Simple. There is absolutely no connection between reproduction and marriage (period).
You constant attempts to tie "conception rights" to same sex marriage is simply not valid.
Posted by: John | September 15, 2007 at 03:05 PM
Mr. Howard, I guess your problem is that you have missed your target audience. People here are pro-GLBT rights and what you are selling sounds like a smoke and mirrored form of bigotry.
You also don't seem to understand that not all same sex couples, married or otherwise care to have children.
I can't imagine the number of people that are lined up to have Franken-babies, but the numbers must be huge to say the least with the amount of effort you put into this subject.
Shouldn't you be worried about all the pregnancies extra-terrestrials are causing? Why should we continue to support their love children, can you answer me that?
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 15, 2007 at 03:11 PM
Exactly, John Hosty-Grinnell, there can't be very many people like musclehippy who are so insistent on same-sex couples being allowed to create children together using their own gametes. He is surely a rather rare example, but he does seem quite eager and adamant, doesn't he? I think you should explain to him that Love Makes a Family. But even you are not dropping the demand for same-sex conception rights, are you? You are just trying to pretend they aren't real.
Why do you insist on the right, when you seem to realize it's silly, and ought to realize that if you dropped the demands for equal conception rights and pushed instead for the Compromise, it would be a much bigger advance for real families? We could give equal protections to same-sex couples in states that have Civil Unions that are defined as exactly like marriage but lacking conception rights, and make it much much easier to enact civil unions like that in all the other states too.
And we should support children once they are conceived, we shouldn't call any children Franken-babies, they will be children. Why do you use that word, just to send a smokescreen of ambiguity around your real position? Or just because you are so full of judgement and misanthropy you can't help it?
John, apparently you feel that marriages don't have a guaranteed right to use their own genes to conceive a child together. That is even more alarming to me than people trying to create a baby from genetic engineered gametes. We have to affirm that all people have a right to marry, and that all marriages have conception rights. That is how our conception rights are protected. You seem to want to be able to prohibit or dissuade marriages from conceiving together, using their own gametes. Either that or you insist on allowing same-sex conception. Which is it? Probably both, huh?
All marriages should have a right to conceive together, using their own gametes. Same-sex couples should not have a right to conceive together using their own gametes. Ergo.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 03:43 PM
"That is how our conception rights are protected. You seem to want to be able to prohibit or dissuade marriages from conceiving together, using their own gametes. Either that or you insist on allowing same-sex conception. Which is it? Probably both, huh?"
Conception rights are guaranteed by the constitution and the have nothing do do with. I can go conceive a child with an 18-year old hippie chick tomorrow and while my would likely kill me, it is not against the law.
It is NOT MARRIAGE that grants conception rights.
"You seem to want to be able to prohibit or dissuade marriages from conceiving together, using their own gametes"
You think I would want to prohibit THAT?
I don't want to prohibit anything of the sort.
And if SSC becomes a reality, you bet your I support it.
Whatever an individual wants to do that doesn't step on my toes, I back to the hilt.
Posted by: John | September 15, 2007 at 04:06 PM
SSC is a reality, and I sure do bet that you support it. So then, what do you care what it has to do with marriage? You want marriage, and you want conception rights. It's only a conflict if we have one but not the other. That's if we have marriages that don't have conception rights, or people prohibited from marrying that do have conception rights. They're both stupid. If we have marriages that don't have conception rights, then it WILL be possible for someone to prohibit or pressure couples into using donor sperm, genetically engineered sperm, etc. If you want to guarantee the right of a marriage to conceive using their own genes, then same-sex marriage means we have to allow SSC. Do you understand yet? In your case, you say, fine, let's allow SSC. But allowing SSC is dumb for so many other reasons, that it should be banned and probably will be banned. That would strip conception rights from every marriage, unless we changed SSMs to CUs that did not grant conception rights.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 04:23 PM
PS, John, you might want to check out the law before screwing that hippiechick.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 04:26 PM
"That would strip conception rights from every marriage, unless we changed SSMs to CUs that did not grant conception rights.
THAT IS BULLSHIT.
Why, why, why can't you understand that simple point of law.
If SSC is dangerous it will be banned. The fact that those people are in a SSM is irrelevant.
I know you think you answered this on Jane's blog but you are wrong.
We can and do strip conception right from cousin marriages. Not just old people. In states with such laws cousins have to prove that they are not able to produce. I seriously doubt they would allowed IVF. (Obviously they could go to another state)
Posted by: John | September 15, 2007 at 04:32 PM
Obviously that law you site in unenforceable.
Posted by: John | September 15, 2007 at 04:33 PM
SSC IS dangerous, but it isn't banned. It should be banned immediately, not just because it is super risky, but because it is totally useless and sends terrible messages about adoption and step-parents and opens the door to all sorts of genetic engineering.
Animal testing proves that SSC is unaccaptably risky. It proves that it is dangerous. 99.8% of embryos created do not survive, nine of ten embryos that make it to birth do not live to adulthood. That is proof that it is dangerous.
Aside from the question of what the union is called, will you accept SSC being banned? Will you accept not having the same rights with a man that you would with a woman?
I'm going to take you at your word that you are fine with it being banned. Now, do you see what happens to the rights of marriage, everyone's marriage, if we allow people to marry who are prohibited from attempting to conceive together?
Those cousin marriages are NOT prohibited from attempting to conceive together, I've looked at some of those laws up close before. They are marriages with all the rights of marriage, and they were allowed because they probably wouldn't be able to conceive. But they weren't prohibited from trying (ie, having sex, which was the only way to try back when those laws were written). They do not therefore strip conception rights from marriage, but they would if they were legally prohibited from conceiving together, in which case they should be replaced with CU's offer all the protections and obligations of marriage but do not guarantee them the right to conceive together.
And how can you look at that issue without noticing that the question of whether or not to allow cousin marriage was the same as the question of whether or not to allow cousins to conceive together? The compromise to allow infertile cousins to marry (and they usually have to be old too), is all about acknowledging that marriage gives a couple conception rights.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 05:45 PM
Adultery laws are enforcable, but they usually require self-policing. They require people to say "we shouldn't have sex, hippie chick, becasue I'm married and that would be against the law". That is how laws are enforced. The law that makes it a crime to rob a bank is not only enforced when people rob a bank, it is enforced every time someone decides not to rob a bank because it's illegal.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 05:47 PM
Mr. Howard, People have children out of wedlock all the time. Someone does not need to be married in order to have children in this country. This is why we are all scratching our heads at your words.
The same is true of the gay world. When the technology is available and we can create children from same sex parents, the fact that they are married or not won't matter. They will have the same rights as every other citizen to be married or not, and to have children or not.
Let me make your argument a little easier to sell:
Franken-babies = BAD
Equality = GOOD
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 15, 2007 at 05:50 PM
Right, but what I am talking about has almost zilch to do with children being born out of wedlock. Shouldn't it be pretty obvious that I know that people have children out of wedlock?
Scratch your head harder. I am not trying to prohibit unwed conception, I am trying to prohibit all non-egg-and-sperm conception. Whether a same-sex couple is married or not has nothing to do with being against same-sex conception. (Well, actually it does, if we continue to allow same-sex conception, then we should allow SSM and encourage couples attempting SSC together to be married first. This is why I am against banning SSM if we do not also enact an egg and sperm law.)
An egg and sperm law, which would prohibit all people from creating children from genetic engineered gametes, whether gay or straight, will not change the rights of any hetero couple, but it will change the rights of every same-sex couple. You see, hetero marriages will still have the right to combine their gametes together after an egg and sperm law. Unmarried hetero couples will still have the same practical abilities to conceive together, and people will still have the same practical abilities to use sperm donors, etc. But no same-sex couple will have the right to conceive together, using their own gametes.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 06:00 PM
"Scratch your head harder. I am not trying to prohibit unwed conception, I am trying to prohibit all non-egg-and-sperm conception."
If this is your goal, why continue to confuse the issue by marrying it to, well..., marriage?
Stay on focus with the egg and sperm thing, lose the association to marriage. That is where you are at your weakest when trying to make your point.
I'm not sure we disagree on this issue. I know we need to be scientificly curious in order to advance, but I also know we need to act with extreme caution.
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 15, 2007 at 06:25 PM
Two reasons, John. First of all, the other part of my goal is to preserve marriage's conception rights. It does no good to enact an egg and sperm law if we also don't allow every person to conceive using their own gametes. So all marriage's have to have conception rights, ie, every both-sex couples has to have conception rights except those for which there is a supportable, public reason to not allow them to conceive together, ie, siblings, children, etc. For example, it would not have been acceptable if Virginia allowed the Lovings to marry but insisted that they use a black man's sperm to have a child. The whole point was that they wanted to be allowed to have a child together. So, we can't have same-sex marriages and also enact an egg and sperm law without stripping those conception rights that the Loving's fought for from marriage. That can't be ignored, you can't be so cavalier about saying that it doesn't affect marriage to publicly prohibit married couples from procreating together. That affects everyone's marriage, it denies them the right to procreate together and makes it just a privilege granted by the state on the basis of individual risk or some other standard. Every marriage should have a right to conceive together, there should be no risk assessment or other qualification.
Second, there are many groups opposed to genetic engineering, but they are ineffectual. Many just don't believe it they can do it, they are now just bitterly prognosticating about the bleak brave new world we are entering into. So, I'm hoping that using the marriage debate as a catalyst will get us an egg and sperm law passed. The Compromise ought to be able to make everyone happy - it would give same-sex couples equal protections, which is also something that will not happen any time soon without this compromise, and it will preserve marriage both as a man and a woman and as a guarantee of conception rights, and it would stop cloning and other strange forms of genetic engineering.
It is very harmful to marriage and conception rights to continue to talk of them as if they were different things. The reason we never heard the term "conception rights" before, in regular speech or legal cases like Zablocki and Loving, was that people used the term marriage to refer to conception rights. They were and still are the same thing.
Are you going to consider supporting the Compromise to achieve equal protections for same-sex couples, or are you going to hold out for marriage, putting conception rights in jeopardy and also opening the door to genetic engineering? I say leave conception rights to both-sex couples and help put this debate behind us. We can do this before Christmas.
Posted by: John Howard | September 15, 2007 at 08:30 PM
"I'm hoping that using the marriage debate as a catalyst will get us an egg and sperm law passed."
Mr. Howard, it's not working. I have read many of your statements all across this great Blogdom and the evidence is in how you are received. People don't get what you are trying to do. Try something new, or at least ask yourself what you may be doing wrong, because you know as well as I that people aren't getting it. They tell you so, and I have seen you frustrate yourself over and over trying to explain it. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll never succeed, and it annoys the pig.
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 15, 2007 at 09:35 PM
I'm somewhat curious mr. Howard as to how you feel about hetero couples utilizing this technology to have a baby? Whether or not they are married or not.
Posted by: musclehippy | September 16, 2007 at 02:32 AM
A quick question too for JH. How come you call them "franken" babies? Sounds a wee bit prejudice methinks.
Posted by: musclehippy | September 16, 2007 at 02:35 AM
John, that's also called perseverance, and I think I've been making progress. Eventually someone, maybe you, will open their mind enough to try to understand what I'm proposing and why, and they'll agree that we should push for this solution. Same-sex couples get equal protection, genetic engineering is stopped and the resources spent on actual health care, and marriage's conception rights are preserved.
The problem I'm having is that people that are opposed to SSM have been demonized according to the After The Ball plan, and I get bombarded with "crazy bigot" and yelled at, people are conditioned to recoil from anyone saying there is a good reason to oppose SSM. I am not sure how to break through that, other than to keep trying and hope that someone breaks ranks and tells his friends that actually, the compromise is a good thing that we should get behind.
Because there is no guarantee of equal protections just because the older generation dies off and public opinion changes, there is more of a guarantee of electing more republican presidents to keep the court leaning right for decades. Why put the country through that, when you could get equal protections just by conceding that same-sex conception is unnecessary and unethical?
Posted by: John Howard | September 16, 2007 at 02:00 PM
musclehippy, the Egg and Sperm law would prohibit everyone from conceiving a child that is not the union of an unadulterated sperm from a man and an unadulterated egg from a woman. So even a male-female couple would not be allowed to genetically modify their genes to take out a gene for MS or something, or put in a gene for perfect pitch or high intelligence. We should all be created equal, without a giant government regulated industry or a Ministry of Genetics or corporate lawyers and marketers trying to make us purchase better babies from them. The only way to avoid a genes-race, where everyone feels morally obligated to have their genes screened and modified if they can afford it, is to not allow anyone to do that.
Aren't our health care costs high enough without having to design every baby that gets born?
Posted by: John Howard | September 16, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Mr. Howard, what you fail to see because you are too close to the trees to see the forest is that your connection between conception and marriage is weak. People know that they can get married without conception, and they can conceive without marriage. Your attempt to connect the two muddles you point that no one should be playing mad scientist, which many more people would agree with.
If you think this attempt to combine the two is working for you, by all means proceed. I just don't see the need for the connection. Please don't feel the need to repeat what you have already said, my scroll button works fine. ;)
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 16, 2007 at 02:08 PM
I am a mad scientist, so I'm getting a kick out these comments.
Posted by: John | September 16, 2007 at 02:27 PM
Well, scroll up to where I repeated that all marriages should have a right to conceive with their own gametes. Do you agree? Do you think most people agree? That has certainly always been true of every marriage (even those cousin marriages, John), and it's more important now than ever that we preserve marriage's conception rights.
And if we pass the egg and sperm law, the rights of both-sex couples will be different from same-sex couples anyway, so why insist on the legal name being the same? Do you favor passing an egg and sperm law?
Posted by: John Howard | September 16, 2007 at 02:50 PM
Soooo....exactly what is wrong Mr. Howard with using genetic research and technology to weed out genetically killer diseases from the human genome? Oh wait! Of course! I understand now! It MUST be god's will to see some individuals undergoing a fuckin' living hell on Earth when the technology now exists to RID THE HUMAN GENOME FOREVER of these debilitating diseases right? I wonder exactly what your view is on the modern medicine movement as well. Should I summon the local witch doctor or faith healer the next time my appendix is preparing to burst or the next time I'm in a car wreck?!? Methinks you woke up on the wrong side of the century bud. Not only will Genetic Research free us from genetically inherited diseases Mr. Howard but it will also pave the way for world peace! How? Well, let's just say that once the CAUSES for barbarism have been removed from human society then the PROCESS for world peace will finally be able to get underway. You're a bright boy Mr. Howard I'll let YOU figure out the rest. Getting back on the topic of how SSP would relate to SSM, I definitely think you're cuttin' yer nose off to spite your face by trying to ban SSP in the mad and desperate attempt to try to block SSM! SSM WILL BE A NATIONWIDE REALITY!! You can embrace it or you can keep opposing it 'till the day you drop! My advice to you is basically if you're THAT opposed to equal rights legislation then there are SEVERAL other countries out there of which you can immigrate to. Iran, Iraq, El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Mississippi, Texas, Idaho, Montana, ect,ect,ect you get the general drift Mr. Howard. There are PLENTY of pro redneck areas of which you religious whackos could immigrate to. Hell, theres even a Amish Community or two who I'm sure would just welcome you with open arms Mr. Howard. You could even have sex with your mother or sister to make sure the bloodlines remained "pure" orrrrr....how about marrying about 5 or 6 wives and then voluntering for the Mitt romney for president campaign.
Posted by: musclehippy | September 16, 2007 at 02:54 PM
You are crazy, musclehippy. World peace by genetically altering everyone's genome so that we are all born with some sort of peace gene? We can't wipe out human suffering by genetic engineering people, we can't even wipe out a genetic disease, people will still be born with every disease there is, even if some rich couple is able to avoid it in their children. It's all about selfish convenience, those couples don't want to have to have any problems with dirty children, they want only clean healthy children. Well, they should have to have their own children just like the rest of us will.
Please go to the library and check out Enough by Bill McKibben.
Posted by: John Howard | September 16, 2007 at 03:25 PM
First off Mr. Howard until you have some better grasp of genetic research please don't post on subjects of which you have ZERO knowledge. Secondly, YES there actually is a "peace" gene, unfortunately you heteros don't possess it! Thirdly, WHEN genetic screening for genetically inherited diseases becomes a REALITY it will be one of the most FANTASTIC branches of human medicine next to nanotechnology itself! The former will FINALLY ELIMINATE FOREVER ALL GENETIC DISEASES from the human genome, and the latter will be able to cure ANY AND ALL FORMS OF VIRAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL INFECTION! Picture it Mr. Howard, a world finally rid once and for all of human sufferage due to disease. I doubt though that a religious "intellectual" such as yourself can really, truly grasp the implications of this scenario, but hey, the next time I catch ebola I'll definitely call the local prayer circle group, Mr. Howard. 'Kay. Or......how about THIS one, if ever I'm diagnosed with AIDS I'll just ring up the current health minister of South Africa who recommends I should just eat a lot of beet roots and garlic to not only "help" me with this condition but will actually CURE me of HIV infection! LOL! Yes Mr. Howard, I know, life was SOOOO much easier and simpler back in the Dark Ages but hey we've already tried that route and it did'nt quite work out. Gotta try new things baby! If evolution is outlawed, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL EVEOLVE!! See ya, baby! =))
Posted by: musclehippy | September 17, 2007 at 03:22 AM
ooops...I meant to say 'EVOLVE". Heh,heh.
Posted by: musclehippy | September 17, 2007 at 11:57 AM
I've noticed a propensity of people who are in favor of genetic engineering to claim that only they are knowledgeable enough to talk about the issue. It really illustrates to their ultra-stupidity and extreme arrogance. And you are really confused about the difference between XX and XY chromosomes, haploid gametes, and sexual genetic imprinting, and really alarmingly confused about the peace gene and only gay people having it. So this future world where there is no disease and no war won't have any heterosexuals in it, eh? Figures.
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 01:49 PM
"So this future world where there is no disease and no war won't have any heterosexuals in it, eh? Figures."
Oh, no, you're mistaken.
They'll be there....as slaves.
Posted by: Lula | September 17, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Lula, have you considered supporting the Compromise yet? Do you feel conception rights are more important than equal protections and security like musclehippy does? I think that it is cruel to same-sex couples to leave them unprotected by any civil union in most states, and unrecognized by their own country, because you insist on equal conception rights for same-sex couples. Why do that?
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 02:20 PM
John Howard, you flse dichotomy is irritating.
Posted by: John | September 17, 2007 at 02:23 PM
Mr. Howard,
This is your ass, I'd like you to meet it - as you obviously speak through it.
Posted by: ryan charisma | September 17, 2007 at 02:35 PM
There's no false dichotomy, John. Insisting on equal marriage rights costs couples in other states a chance to pass civil unions and federal recognition of their equal marriages. It will likely elect another Republican president. If you endorsed this compromise, all you'd be giving up is a right to do something that you probably will never be able to do anyhow, and which hopefully you would agree is not something you would want to do even if some lab says they can do it, and, back there on the books at city hall, the name marriage, which would continue to guarantee conception rights. But you would have equal protections and a likelihood of 50-state recognition, and you could still use the word "marriage" on all your wedding invitations and for all purposes except claiming conception rights. There'd be no law against saying you were married, so it is hard to tell why you oppose this compromise. Do you really want conception rights so bad you are willing to throw same-sex couples in other states under the bus, and throw older couples that need federal recognition under the bus? They need that stuff now! You know they do, but don't care.
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 03:10 PM
"There's no false dichotomy, John."
Bullshit.
Everything you say is a figment of your imagination.
Posted by: John | September 17, 2007 at 03:20 PM
John, go to my site (www.eggandsperm.org) and read all the articles in the sidebar. Kaguya is not my imagination. The fact that it would be unethical to try it in humans is not my imagination. Marriages having conception rights are not my imagination. The lack of federal recognition for same-sex marriages is not my imagination. The lack of civil unions in most states is not my imagination.
The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise is not my imagination.
Now, the stuff musclehippy talks about, Peace genes, wiping out all disease...THAT is batshit insane figmets of imagination.
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Mr. Howard:
"But you would have equal protections and a likelihood of 50-state recognition, and you could still use the word "marriage" on all your wedding invitations and for all purposes except claiming conception rights. There'd be no law against saying you were married, so it is hard to tell why you oppose this compromise."
patronizing, condescending, and infuriating
No compromise on equality. None.
Posted by: Lula | September 17, 2007 at 03:31 PM
"Marriages having conception rights are not my imagination."
There is still no reason why SSP cannot be banned if it is dangerous. Marriage or not.
Posted by: John | September 17, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Howard, John-son
Yeah, I saw your silly web page, and I'd like to be the first to say "I don't care"
There, there it is on the table. I said it.
"I care NOT."
Let the lesbians have babies without men.
I simply don't care, you're banging a drum that I don't want to hear.
buh bye
Posted by: ryan charisma | September 17, 2007 at 03:32 PM
Let me be the second to say "I don't care".
Posted by: John | September 17, 2007 at 03:39 PM
Lula, it's infuriating that conception rights turn out to be what is most important for you. Not equal protections for couples that need it, but equal rights to conceive children together? That is incredibly stupid! Yeah, I can see how it would be difficult to admit you were wrong about the equal rights thing. But it's not like many people had considered it before now. Now, it is time to embrace the opportunity to achieve equal protections via civil unions, and leave conception rights to male-female couples.
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 03:39 PM
"There is still no reason why SSP cannot be banned if it is dangerous. Marriage or not."
It would be the first time in history that a marriage was publicly banned from conceiving together with their own gametes. That would mean that all marraiges could be banned from conceiving together with their own gametes. But, you care not about that.
Do you guys care that same-sex couples in other states do not have any protections for their relationships? Do you care that Massachusetts same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government? Well, if you don't care about same-sex conception, then you don't care if it is banned either, and so why don't you help the actual real couples instead of clinging to some insane vision of a utopian genetically engineered future where everyone is perfectly healthy. It's a nightmare, not a utopia, and if we allow lesbians to start combining genes to create daughters together, we will not be able to prevent that nightmare from happening. We have so much more important stuff to be working on, bridges that need rebuilding, people that need medical care, and yet we are goig to be forced to spend billions on same-sex conception technology because you "don't care" about it. I care, and I am asking you to care too.
Face it, you guys are looking silly here. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong and changing your position.
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 03:48 PM
Go to school, John Howard.
Posted by: John | September 17, 2007 at 03:58 PM
HOWARD:
"Lula, it's infuriating that conception rights turn out to be what is most important for you."
Don't put words into my mouth. I never said that.
As for us looking silly...sir, you look INSANE.
I'm going to third the "I don't care."
Posted by: Lula | September 17, 2007 at 04:29 PM
Lula, you said "no compromise on equality" and the only compromise I had suggested is to drop the demand for conception rights. You won't drop the demand for conception rights, even though doing that would benefit real couples tremendously all over the country. You're an ass! You might never be able to do same-sex conception anyhow, so why demand the right to do it now, today, instead of dropping the demand for equal conception rights?
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 04:37 PM
equality is equality
anything less for marriage, conception & abortion is wrong.
inherently wrong.
Posted by: ryan charisma | September 17, 2007 at 05:28 PM
HOWARD:
"You're an ass!"
Kiss me, then.
Posted by: Lula | September 17, 2007 at 05:40 PM
Ryan, equality would only come through prohibiting all other methods besides joining a woman's egg with a man's sperm. If we start allowing labs to design babies, or people to have their conception rights dissuaded because of genetic risks, say goodbye to equality.
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 05:42 PM
I am not buying into that.
Humans will always have sex and make babies.
The lab is to help those who can't.
Posted by: ryan charisma | September 17, 2007 at 05:45 PM
Mr. Howard, what if we did ban GLBT from using genetics to have babies, married or otherwise. Would you then be able to support GLBT marriages?
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 17, 2007 at 07:26 PM
That is a yes or no question by the way.
I am not interested in reading another one of your manifestos. I'm straining as it is not to gloss over what you say and try to treat your point of view with dignity.
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 17, 2007 at 07:28 PM
Actually JH I would'nt even lower myself to ask this twatlick THAT question! What this clown's trying to say is HERE'S HALF OF YOUR RIGHTS! TAKE 'EM OR LEAVE 'EM! What a complete ASSHOLE!! Oh btw Mr. Howard YES I do want to see the end of all diseases! of course you being the fine upstanding "pro" lifer that you are must get off on seeing wheelchair bound invalids though huh? Gee, what a compassionate conservative you are Mr. Howard! Fuckin' idiot! NO, Mr. Howard! There will be NO compromise on our MARRIAGE rights NOR our CONCEPTION rights! NO compromise, NO debate! We're through debating with you heteros! Done! done! done! Every major friggin' problem that exists ON THIS PLANET exists because of you and YOUR KIND!!! Every freakin' war, every disease(including AIDS), poverty, famine you name it you heteros HAVE INSTIGATED IT!! You are yesterday's newsreel Mr. Howard. Your kind had its chance. YOU BLEW IT!! Now sit back and watch EVOLUTION at work baby!! Have a nice day.
Posted by: musclehippy | September 17, 2007 at 09:42 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell asks "what if we did ban GLBT from using genetics to have babies, married or otherwise. Would you then be able to support GLBT marriages?"
No.
That would be very bad because it would mean that it is acceptable to take away the conception rights of a legally married couple. Why would that only apply to same-sex couples, if they are truly equal marriages? There are many hetero marriages for whom it would be risky to have children together, and if we can prohibit same-sex marriages from trying it, then we can prohibit all marriages from doing it. We should not be able to prohibit a married couple from conceiving children together with their own gametes, we should ensure that marriage continues to protect a couple's conception rights together, as it has for all of history. We should not remove the sine qua non of marriage from marriage.
You forget that I support GLBT marriages NOW, because same-sex conception is legal. It is only when same-sex conception becomes illegal that we have to turn same-sex marriages into civil unions, to preserve marriage's conception rights.
Also, you are missing the point of the compromise. No one is going to support giving the federal recognition to civil unions if they don't get anything in return, and what they want isn't a ban on same-sex conception (that's just me), they want the word "marriage" being reserved for same-sex couples. They also won't accept civil unions if they are just like marriage, there has to be a substantial difference. I've already described conception rights as the sine qua non of marriage, so that is your substantial difference right there. That should be the only difference.
If you are willing to accept that same-sex couples shouldn't have the same right to conceive together that both sex couples have, why don't you recognize that we can't use the same name?
It is unsafe now and should be banned now, and if Congress ever decides to unban it and make same-sex conception legal, then we should turn all the civil unions into full-fledge marraiges. But we shoudln't get ahead of ourselves and threaten the rights of marriage in the process.
Posted by: John Howard | September 17, 2007 at 11:33 PM
I meant, "they want the word "marriage" being reserved for male-female couples." Your side gets equal protections, their side gets the word marriage, my side gets an egg and sperm law and preserves conception rights.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 02:01 AM
Fuck off Howard! Plain and simple! NO COMPROMISE! NO DEAL!!
Posted by: musclehippy | September 18, 2007 at 04:01 AM
yeah Howard,
this conversation is done.
you lose.
let the lesbians have babies.
Posted by: ryan charisma | September 18, 2007 at 07:36 AM
Howard, your argument makes no sense to me because of the following fact: there ARE no "conception rights" in marriage. The right to conceive a child has nothing to do with marriage in the first place.
The fact that men and women make babies together is the sina qua non of the government's interest in marriage. But natural conception is not a right; it's a FACT that marriage has been designed to deal with.
________
Musclehippy, what's with this "twatlick" insult you are tossing around? Why are you hot and bothered by the idea of a woman receiving oral sex? This is 2007. Since Lawrence v. Texas, the police don't bust down your bedroom door for your consensual activities between adults. Live and let live, man. Whatever happened to peace and love and all that good hippy stuff?
While Howard's argument seems uninformed and absurd, your reaction to Howard's argument is even goofier. You demand "conception rights" as part of "equality." Well, you're arguing to be "equal" to Howard's misunderstanding about marriage. Real marriage has no "conception right." You are arguing to secure a right that does not exist in the first place.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 01:42 PM
So THAT's what twatlick means!
Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 at 02:02 PM
Ghengis, there ARE conception rights in marriage. Show me ONE marriage that is prohibited from attempting to conceive children together, just one. There are lots of couples that are prohibited from conceiving, like siblings, mothers and sons, etc, but they are not allowed to be married. The Lovings were not allowed to marry, it was and is synonymous with their not being allowed to have children together. That's because marriage gives the couple the right to have children together. That right exists, and musclehippy is arguing to secure that right. It matters not that you don't really need marriage to have children together these days, we are talking about prohibiting couples from conceiving together, whether they are married or not, and that is incompatible with allowing that couple to marry. It would strip the right to conceive from marriage.
Did you see Ryan's comment, Ghengis? He's demanding that we do not take away the right for lesbians to make babies together (actually they could make only daughters). He knows that if we take away the right for people to conceive with someone of their same sex, then same-sex couples are not equal in rights, and furthermore, he understands that all marriages need to have conception rights. We could strip conception rights from marriage, if we wanted to allow corporations and bureaucrats to be able to screen people's genes and force people to make improvements. But we shouldn't do that.
Do you see how the marriage debate has advanced into whether or not to allow same-sex conception, Ghengis? Do you have a position on that?
I think if you are an Opiner, then you may be in favor of genetic engineering, and that is why you make a fake argument about marriage. Are you in favor of saying "Enough" with an Egg and Sperm law that stops genetic engineering, Ghengis?
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 02:31 PM
John Howard, go to school.
Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Oh, God...ditto that, John.
Posted by: Lula | September 18, 2007 at 02:41 PM
Hey Ryan and musclehippy, when you refused the deal, did you consult with same-sex couples in other states that do not have any form of legal security for their relationship, or older married couples in Massachusetts that cannot access their spouse's survivor benefits?
I think they would be might pissed to learn that you insist on having same-sex conception rights so much that you are willing to throw so many couples to the lions and leave them out in the cold. Why not wait until same-sex conception is safe before demanding a right to do it, and demand equal protections now, instead?
This compromise is a huge step forward for same-sex couples, and for all of society, because making it so lesbians can have babies together is incredibly wasteful and irresponsible and destroys human dignity, it makes us puny products manufactured according to spec by corporations. Do not force that future on us, at the expense of same-sex couples nationwide, just because you are stuck behind a dogmatic ideology that you must have equal rights! No, you should only have the right to conceive with a woman, sorry.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 02:42 PM
What do you think I need to learn, John?
You people are holding up progress, hurting same-sex couples that need equal protections.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 02:44 PM
Howard: "Show me ONE marriage that is prohibited from attempting to conceive children together, just one."
Show me one nonmarried hetero couple that is prohibited from attempting to conceive children together, just one.
Show me just one law on the books or in US caselaw that would any adult woman, married or single, from having sex with 75 guys in a month to prove that it "takes a village to conceive a child."
The right to conceive a child is an individual right, and not a right dependent on marriage. See Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." This rejects your assumption (apparently shared by KTN members) that sexual partners obtain all of their legally enforceable rights regarding reproduction through the marriage contract.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 02:48 PM
I think you need to learn a lot about the law and science.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion that SSP is unethical, and I fully respect your opinion. But it is opinion, with no basis in law or science.
Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 at 02:49 PM
"I think if you are an Opiner, then you may be in favor of genetic engineering"
I doubt very much that the diverse Opine panel happens to share the same position on genetic engineering. The only thing that Opine members have in common is the imperative to protect the word "marriage" from being changed by the state, and a general desire to conduct the discussion rationally, without demonizing gays. Some of us approve of SSUs, some do not. We've openly argued with each other about that topic and about other topics such as affirmative action, whether homosexuality is innate, etc.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 02:55 PM
so, you couldn't show me one marriage that is prohibited form conceiving together, could you?
We aren't talking about unmarried people, Genghis, but for the record, my state has a fornication law and an adultery law that make sex only legal in marriage. Eisenstadt did not make unmarried conception legal, it made unmarried contraception legal. Even Lawrence v Texas affirms that marriage gives the couple the right to have sexual intercourse, which of course means the right to conceive children together.
You seem to want to be able to deny a marriage the right to conceive together, is this true? You say that conception rights aren't protected by marriage. That is a dangerous fascist eugenic asshole thing to say. Perhaps you didn't mean that.
There were a lot of important questions I asked you in those last couple posts to you, Christian, that wouldn't be too hard to answer.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 03:02 PM
I don't know enough about the arguments to say that there's no basis for opposing ssp in law or science. SSP could be seen as an example of deliberate genetic engineering for purposes of exerting proprietary rights. It's not the same-sex part that's ethically reprensible. The ethical issue is, is it OK to use genetic manipulation for the sole purpose of saying, this creature belongs to me?
That sets a precedent for the sort of horrors that one might find in a Phillip K. Dick book. (Take the movie "Blade Runner," for example.) If a corporation invents and copyrights a gene sequence, can it insert that sequence into a fertilized egg, and then claim rights of parenthood or de-facto ownership of the person? Or will it even be considered a person with rights at all, once the corporation sticks in enough genetic markers to make it arguably not human?
I think there are legitimate arguments, but Howard is framing them as part of the marriage issue, where as far as I can see, they have no legitimate place. If I've misunderstood you, I'm sorry, Howard, but as far as I can see this does not relate to the topic of ssm.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 03:04 PM
John, what is it you think I need to learn about the law or science? And no, there is no way to look at same-sex conception, in light of how unsafe it is proven to be (less than one percent survive), how expensive it is to develop and make affordable, how unnecessary it is (there are kids that need adopting), the messages it says about adopted children and step-children, the way it would open the door to a market driven, government regulated eugenic industry, at a time when we need to be pursuing care and peace throughout the world instead of a eugenetic totalitarian empire, and call it ethical. No way it is ethical, John. Anyone that says it is ethical is wrong. It is unsafe now and should be banned now.
See it as an opportunity to gain federal recognition and end the divisive marriage debate.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 03:09 PM
"We aren't talking about unmarried people, Genghis, but for the record, my state has a fornication law and an adultery law that make sex only legal in marriage."
First of all, the fornication law is never enforced. The adultery law is only enforced on US military bases, where easy access to machine guns and explosives give the government a special concern in maintaining domestic harmony.
Second, the (unenforced) laws you reference only affect conventional intercourse. They do not prohibit a woman using a man's sperm to impregnate herself.
Third, the woman could simply go out of state to play the "takes a village to conceive a child" game, and the laws of her state would not even apply to her action. Not even the Mann act prohibits a woman transporting herself "across state lines for immoral purposes."
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 03:12 PM
I suppose you think that mixing their genes together to make children didn't relate to the topic of inter-racial [marriage] either? They were called "anti-miscegenation" laws, Christian!
There are many ethical issues, Christian, not just one. The scenario of a corporation inserting a gene would be banned by the Egg and Sperm law. So, no need to find out if the corporation would be able to assert parenthood or what have you. We can ban it right now, we can make an egg and sperm law like they have in Missouri.
And if we ban it, same-sex couples won't have a right to conceive together.
I ask again, show me one marriage that is prohibited from attempting to conceive together. We need to protect marriage's conception rights, and you Opine guys are united in your refusal to do so. I seriously think you all work for Genzyme or something.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 03:16 PM
We aren't talking about unmarried people, Christian. Why are you talking about unmarried people?
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 03:18 PM
"Anyone that says it is ethical is wrong. It is unsafe now and should be banned now."
Because YOU say so.
Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Cousin marriages are forbidden to conceive.
Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 at 03:20 PM
And when those laws were written, intercourse was the only way to conceive children. And the only way to prevent conceiving children was by prohibiting intercourse. Allowing intercourse allowed conceiving children.
There were early cases in the 40's that ruled that using donor sperm was adultery, but they were forgotten about, and people just did it secretly for long enough, until it became lost amidst all the other unwed child bearing that was going on.
There has never been a right to conceive a child outside of marriage. It is one of the Ten Commandments, and people are still routinely put to death in many countries for it.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 03:23 PM
"And when those laws were written, intercourse was the only way to conceive children. And the only way to prevent conceiving children was by prohibiting intercourse. Allowing intercourse allowed conceiving children."
The law does not forbid intercourse.
Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Show me the law that says cousin marriages are forbidden to conceive. They are allowed to conceive.
It is unsafe because it has a less than one percent success rate in scientific studies. 450 embryos were created to get one mouse to live to adulthood. Ten pups were born alive, one survived to adulthood. That is unsafe, it is proven to be unsafe.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Fornication and adultery laws refer to intercourse, John. Check out Lawrence v Texas, Kennedy affirms that marriage makes intercourse legal.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 03:27 PM
"Cousin marriages are forbidden to conceive."
Not so. Cousins in some states are allowed to marry on condition that they demonstrate sterility. If the sterility somehow wears off, and they conceive a child together, the state's not going to punish them for conceiving.
------
"We aren't talking about unmarried people, Christian. Why are you talking about unmarried people?"
Because the rights of unmarried people disproves your claim that the right to conceive is part of marriage.
Howard, if we enacted a restriction and tied it to ssms only, then ssp would still be allowed among gay couples that were not "married" or in a union already. The couple could get a divorce, then make a kid, and then reform the union. It doesn't even accomplish your objectives if you tie it to ssm or to ssus.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 03:27 PM
Cousin marriage is perfect safe, indeed in some cultures, preferred. Nonethess many states forbid it unless the couple can show a judge that reproduction is impossible.
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm
Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 at 03:30 PM
The act of adultery is often prohibited, not the act of conceiving a child outside wedlock.
"There has never been a right to conceive a child outside of marriage. It is one of the Ten Commandments"
Really? Which of the ten commandments did Mary break when she conceived Jesus?
What commandment does a woman break when she conceives a child after being raped?
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Where I depart from the strict sperm and egg law, Howard, is that I think that genetic manipulation and splicing of a human zygote's DNA is OK if done strictly for the well-being of the person that it will become, or will become a part of.
I object to someone manipulating or splicing a human zygote's DNA in order to assert parental rights or other proprietary rights, or to make changes that affect the vanity of the prospective parents. For example, I think it would be unethical to splice DNA to keep a kid from being gay, or to make him look more white, etc. Using genetic modification to rid of scickle-cell anemia or Huntington's disease or Tay-Sack's disease or any other genetic disorder would IMO be ethical.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 03:39 PM
If a man could not produce sperm, and wanted to insert his chromosomes directly into an egg in order to make a baby that was directly related to him, I think that would be no less unethical than SSP. Wouldn't it also violate Missouri's sperm and egg law?
But what's marriage have to do with it?
Whether the man or the gay couple are "married" or in a union does not affect the basic immorality of gene tampering for the sake of vanity and power.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 03:43 PM
Christian answers for me regarding cousin marriages:
Not so. Cousins in some states are allowed to marry on condition that they demonstrate sterility. If the sterility somehow wears off, and they conceive a child together, the state's not going to punish them for conceiving.
Exactly right. All marriages have the right to conceive, no marriage is punished for conceiving or prohibited from conceiving.
Because the rights of unmarried people disproves your claim that the right to conceive is part of marriage.
No it doesn't. Marriage did not change when we changed the laws back in the 70's regarding illegitimacy and fornication. Marriage continued to protect the couples right to have children together. And the state continued to withhold marriage licenses from people that it prohibited from conceiving together, like siblings.
Imagine if we stopped caring if people had a license to drive, if we just enforced the rules the same whether the driver was licensed or not. The licensed driver would still have a license to drive that makes it legal for him to drive, even though there are unlicensed drivers all over the road too. And then imagine that blind people, who were ineligible for a license because it would be dangerous for them to drive, started saying they wanted drivers licenses too. Would the fact that there were lots of unlicensed drivers have anything to do with giving blind people licenses? What if we gave them licenses but prohibited them from driving. Wouldn't that change the license so that it did not in fact license anything?
Howard, if we enacted a restriction and tied it to ssms only, then ssp would still be allowed among gay couples that were not "married" or in a union already. The couple could get a divorce, then make a kid, and then reform the union. It doesn't even accomplish your objectives if you tie it to ssm or to ssus.
Christian, we need an egg and sperm law, asap, and that would stop SSP. Stopping SSM would not stop SSP, because people don't need to be married to create genetically manipulated human beings. The point is that the Egg and Sperm law is incompatible with same-sex marriage, because that combination of laws would create, for the first time, marriages that were prohibited from conceiving. If they were equal marriages, then other marriages coule be prohibited from conceiving. That shouldn't be allowed to happen. You should help protect marriage and preserve the right of every person to marry and conceive with their own gametes.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 03:47 PM
The sperm egg law that I support would be this:
Any creature born with over 50% human DNA shall have the right to sue any person, corporation, or any other entity or investor in such an entity that participated in manipulating that creature's DNA, for any harm, physical or psychological, directly caused by the manipultion. There is no statute of limitation, and the corporate veil shall provide no protection against liability. There shall be no need to establish proximate cause. The only affirmative defense against such an action shall be necessity, i.e. that the genetic change was reasonably calculated for the sole purpose of correcting a medically recognized genetic defect.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 03:53 PM
The act of adultery is often prohibited, not the act of conceiving a child outside wedlock.
This is silly. Sex leads to conception, to stop a couple from conceiving, the law forbids sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse needs to be updated to include all forms of joining egg and sperm, now that there are other forms.
Really? Which of the ten commandments did Mary break when she conceived Jesus?
She was married, Genghis. Luckily, otherwise she might have been stoned to death.
What commandment does a woman break when she conceives a child after being raped?
Back then, there was no such thing as marital rape, it was an oxymoron, because there is no more official form of consent to sexual intercourse than marriage, and rape is non-consensual intercourse. So rape is a form of non consensual adultery, for which only the rapist is guilty, rather than both parties.
Where I depart from the strict sperm and egg law, Howard, is that I think that genetic manipulation and splicing of a human zygote's DNA is OK if done strictly for the well-being of the person that it will become, or will become a part of.
And I'm afraid this is clouding your judgement about marriage rights. If you would just read Enough, by Bill McKibben, you'd probably come to realize that we can't just let everyone make these personal decisions about what is for the well-being of the child and what is vanity. Then we also have to deal with what is coerced and what is voluntary, what is worth it and what is too expensive, too risky, too offensive to human dignity.
I object to someone manipulating or splicing a human zygote's DNA in order to assert parental rights or other proprietary rights, or to make changes that affect the vanity of the prospective parents. For example, I think it would be unethical to splice DNA to keep a kid from being gay, or to make him look more white, etc.
What if someone else felt that was important. Would you just Opine about it on a blog somewhere?
Using genetic modification to rid of scickle-cell anemia or Huntington's disease or Tay-Sack's disease or any other genetic disorder would IMO be ethical.
You left out a word: to rid what of those diseases? There will still be children born with all of those things, so perhaps you mean my family of those diseases, or perhaps, other rich families. I really recommend you read Enough. If you continue to believe that SSC and genetic engineering is acceptable, I think you should get out of the marriage debate, because you are internally contradicted and harming marriage and threatening our individual conception rights because you are a eugenicist.
If a man could not produce sperm, and wanted to insert his chromosomes directly into an egg in order to make a baby that was directly related to him, I think that would be no less unethical than SSP. Wouldn't it also violate Missouri's sperm and egg law?
If they find a way to make new sperm that is his sperm, represents his genome exactly the way his sperm ought to, then they could use that in Missouri. That is called medicine, Christian. SSP is not medicine, it does not restore healthy functioning to a sick person. And it is waaay more dangerous, because the genome is imprinted as male or female, all across the genome.
But what's marriage have to do with it?
With banning non-egg and sperm procreation? Only that it would result in banning same-sex couples from conceiving, and that is incompatible with the rights of marriage. Every marriage should have conception rights. Stop disagreeing with this, unless you really want to come out and say you don't think breeders should be allowed to breed just because they are married.
Whether the man or the gay couple are "married" or in a union does not affect the basic immorality of gene tampering for the sake of vanity and power.
That's true. Just don't suggest that a marriage can be prohibited from conceiving using their own genes.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 04:14 PM
The only affirmative defense against such an action shall be necessity, i.e. that the genetic change was reasonably calculated for the sole purpose of correcting a medically recognized genetic defect.
Why should that be a defense? Malpractice is malpractice. There is no obligation to go in and try to correct a genetic defect, so it is no excuse that they had to do it because it was medically necessary. It was a vanity project through and through, and a wasteful and unwise thing to try to do.
Please read Enough!
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 04:19 PM
"You left out a word: to rid what of those disease"
To rid the affected child of those things, of course.
"malpractice is malpractice"
Like ssm advocates, your argument suffers from your failure to examine the laws that you are proposing to change, Howard. My proposal would not prevent victims of genetic engineering neglect from suing for malpractice. Malpractice involves negligence -- meaning that the doctor did something that under the current science, she knew or should have known could lead to harm. I've suggested restricting nonmedical genetic manipulations with a standard that's more exacting even than current standards of strict liability.
Medicine is medicine. If you think that it's "vanity" to save your future kid from Huntington's disease, Tay-Sachs, or sickle-cell anemia, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 04:50 PM
"Like ssm advocates, your argument suffers from your failure to examine the laws that you are proposing to change"
Your overkill as a "lawyer wannabe" are producing a very unpleasant byproduct: insufferable arrogance.
Posted by: Lula | September 18, 2007 at 05:09 PM
Let me correct myself, before you do it for me:
Your overkill as a "lawyer wannabe" is producing a very unpleasant byproduct: insufferable arrogance.
Posted by: Lula | September 18, 2007 at 05:10 PM
soooooo....If a hetero couple knowingly share a fatally debilitating gene and they hump and produce a crippled child then that son/daughter should be able to sue their parents? Sounds like the ol' double standard bigot trip to me ghengishole. It also sounds like social terrorism against the gay/Lesbian community when you say that our future children should have the right to sue us for a genetic "malfunction". Ahhhh...yes you shuuuuure sound like a lefty. what's that ol' biblical proverb, ah yes, "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing"! "By their deeds you shall know them". Sooo...when do you and "howie" baby plan on taking this issue to the national level, eh?
Posted by: musclehippy | September 18, 2007 at 05:21 PM
I know this is going to sound perhaps redundant.
But I really don't care about his discussion.
Posted by: ryan charisma | September 18, 2007 at 05:25 PM
"Your overkill as a "lawyer wannabe" is producing a very unpleasant byproduct: insufferable arrogance."
I don't claim to be perfect; I've only said that I'm honest. You may have put your finger on one of my weaknesses, Lula, but that I think I was at least this arrogant before I ever thought of being a lawyer.
But the fact that I need to work on my arrogance problem does not mean that I'm right or wrong about this particular issue. That's something that you could only reasonably determine by looking at the merits of my argument.
"If a hetero couple knowingly share a fatally debilitating gene and they hump and produce a crippled child then that son/daughter should be able to sue their parents?"
I express no opinion about that proposal, unless by "sharing" a gene you mean about genetic engineering.
"Sounds like the ol' double standard "
Speaking against non-medical genetic engineering isn't a conspiracy against gays, Muscle.
"you say that our future children should have the right to sue us for a genetic "malfunction"."
You lie, Musclehippy. I never said anything of the sort. To my knowledge, no one in the gay/lesbian community is using GENETIC ENGINEERING to make babies. Some FF couples are getting sperm. Some MM couples are using surrogate mothers. Some FF and MM couples are adopting. None of that involves genetic engineering.
Your misconstruction of what I've said only makes sense if you assume that gays and lesbians all have some grand scheme to genetically manipulate their offspring. And if that's the message that you're trying to send, then you're the wolf in sheeps clothing here.
If you haven't noticed, I don't share Howard's concern with same-sex couples. I think that genetic abuse will primarily come from corporations and the profit motif.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Ryan, did you notice that when I tried to bring up accountability issues re: society's role in the ills of the gay community, there was no response from members of the opposition. Nada. It kind of proved my point, don't you think?
Posted by: Lula | September 18, 2007 at 05:40 PM
"I think I was at least this arrogant before I ever thought of being a lawyer."
Oh, I certainly don't doubt that.
Posted by: Lula | September 18, 2007 at 05:40 PM
I agree with Ryan that we've taken up too much of this thread with the genetic issues.
Sorry if I missed an argument, Lola. I agree that society is largely accountable for the high gay suicide rate, and for some (but not all) of the hate crimes against gays that still occur, and for many of those that did occur. I've often argued (in person more often than online) that our perverse misreading of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has resulted in horrible violence against gays; using a story that involved attempted gang rape to pretend that God would destroy a whole city for acts of consensual male-male sex. Especially since a few books later in the Bible, we see a whole tribe of Israel destroyed over an almost identical heterosexual gang-rape. I reject vicarious accountability, but I believe that we are accountable if we have the power to stop the propagation of hate; we have a duty to exercise that power. That's why I've supported laws against hate crimes, and various antidiscrimination laws.
I recognize that the law of marriage has a disparate impact on gays than on "heterosexuals," but it does not actually discriminate against gays. Nor does marriage foster hate against gays -- greek societies and others often recognized and glorified same-sex relationships, and yet they continued to recognize marriage as the union of man and woman for life.
If you had facts or arguments that could refute mine, you would not so often resort to calling me names or second-guessing my intentions.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 18, 2007 at 06:04 PM
"If a hetero couple knowingly share a fatally debilitating gene and they hump and produce a crippled child then that son/daughter should be able to sue their parents?"
I express no opinion about that proposal, unless by "sharing" a gene you mean about genetic engineering.
I'll express an opinion, that no, no child should be able to sue their parents for passing on their own genes to their children. Why does Genghis have a problem saying "no" there? Because he thinks that parents have an obligation to rid their children of genetic disorders using genetic engineering. The argument of "Enough" is that if we allow couples to start doing that, it will send us down a slippery slope where soon couples will be morally obligated to use labs to make sure their children don't have genetic diseases, and people will start arguing for punishments and liability against couples that don't. Also, the slippery slope will start with Tay-sachs and Huntingtons, but there will be no drawing the line to stop what you would consider pure vanity. How big a government agency will it take, how many lawyers and experts and judges, will it take to draw this ever-changing line? We are at the Enough point right now, where everyone is the natural child of their mother and father and no one can complain about that.
And if you can't see that an egg and sperm law would make it so same-sex couples didn't have conception rights, and yet it would not effect any male-female marriages, then your just not being on the level. Do you think it is important for all marriages to have a right to conceive with their own genes or not? I do, I think it is very important that we don't start suing parents for having a baby with Huntingtons. Given that all marraiges must have conception rights, and same-sex couples must not, we can't allow same-sex marriages.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 06:37 PM
So tell me Mr. Howard what opinion do you hold concerning EBI? Like I can almost guess already, but I just want to hear your "official" complaint before I post a response. =)
Posted by: musclehippy | September 18, 2007 at 06:46 PM
"Because he thinks that parents have an obligation to rid their children of genetic disorders using genetic engineering. "
I don't think Genghis said that.
Posted by: John | September 18, 2007 at 07:09 PM
musclehippy, I think artificial wombs are inhuman. They are a waste of our resources. They are misogynistic - literally! What do you think of them?
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 07:55 PM
If Ghengis says "Using genetic modification to rid of scickle-cell anemia or Huntington's disease or Tay-Sack's disease or any other genetic disorder would IMO be ethical." then Genghis must believe that NOT using genetic modification would be UNETHICAL. He has not said that he believes that all marriages have a right to use their own gametes, either, after many promptings to do so. So it's clear what he is saying.
Posted by: John Howard | September 18, 2007 at 08:00 PM
"Ghengis says "Using genetic modification to rid of scickle-cell anemia or Huntington's disease or Tay-Sack's disease or any other genetic disorder would IMO be ethical." then Genghis must believe that NOT using genetic modification would be UNETHICAL."
That's bad logic, Howard. The fact that X is ethical does not mean that not doing X is unethical.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 19, 2007 at 12:49 AM
"I don't think Genghis said that."
Thank you, John. I always respect an honorable opponent who corrects misrepresentation when he sees it.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 19, 2007 at 12:55 AM
That's bad logic, Howard. The fact that X is ethical does not mean that not doing X is unethical.
First of all, I believe I've accurately guessed your feelings about not using genetic manipulation and having kids anyway. Between not affirming that marriages should have a right to conceive with their own gametes, and withholding your opinion about suing parents who conceived with their own bad genes, I think you feel that it is unethical to do. Either that or you just want to be able to sue people who do perfectly ethical things, which I suppose if someone hires you to do, you'll do, ethics smethics.
As to my logic, ethics is usually thought of in terms of dilemmas, two choices, what to do??? Sure, there are usually good things and bad things about both of them, but the point is to choose which one to do. Should a person do a certain action or not. If you say that doing something is ethical, that is answering the question of what you think people should do.
If you think not doing genetic manipulation is ethical, why say that doing genetic manipulation is ethical? If not doing it is perfectly ethical, why waste the money and resources and send us down the slippery slope to vanity manipulations and government agencies and experts and lawyers and... oh, yeah, I get it.
Posted by: John Howard | September 19, 2007 at 02:15 AM
John Howard, the real world is a lot more complicated and ethics more nuanced than you think.
That is why I see you as a pain in the ass. Not because of your views, which I respect, but your insistence that if anyone disagrees with X then they must therefore agree with Y.
It not only makes conversation difficult, but unpleasant, because you put words in our mouths and then refuse to accept correction
Posted by: John | September 19, 2007 at 06:13 AM
Howard: As to my logic, ethics is usually thought of in terms of dilemmas, two choices, what to do???
Like Jonathan Swift said, Humans are merely animals *capable* of reason, and don't always use that capacity. The fact that we often think in terms of a false dillemma does not transform that logical fallacy into logic.
Posted by: Genghis Cohen | September 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Genghis (and John), you've had numerous chances to say that you think that not doing genetic manipulation when it is available is ethical, and you haven't said so. You've been challenged numerous times to affirm that marriages have a right to have their own children with their own gametes, and you have been silent. You might sue parents who produce kids with preventable defects. All that adds up to you denying the basic civil right of man to procreate with the person of his choice (unless that type of relationship has a supportable basis to prohibit it, like siblings). When something is a "basic civil right of man", you should think twice before scoffing at it and offering a lawyer-approved alternative.
Again: you say that it is ethical to use genetic manipulation, you leave suing parents who don't as an option, and you don't affirm a marriage's right to use their own gametes. There is no other logical way to interpret it: you think not doing genetic manipulation to improve a child's genome is unethical. Until you affirm the right of every person to marry, and every marriage to use their own gametes, that will stand as your position.
Have you ordered a copy of Enough yet? Because you are too close to totally destroying humanity to go on thinking like you do.
Posted by: John Howard | September 19, 2007 at 02:01 PM
Howard, you are reading between the line again.
I believe:
Every individual has the right to reproduce in any way he or she sees fit, providing of course, that it is safe to do so.
Every individual has the right to use the best available science to his or her advantage.
Every individual has the right sue for anything, consistent of course with well established tort law.
Posted by: John | September 19, 2007 at 02:09 PM
Individuals don't have a right to reproduce, only marriages do. Who is going to make your safety inspections, and will they delve into our genes and private health? What guidelines will the safety inspectors use to determine what is safe and what isn't? Who will make those decisions?
No one has a right to do whatever they want.
No one has a right to sue their mother and father for the genes they are born with.
Posted by: John Howard | September 19, 2007 at 03:13 PM
"Individuals don't have a right to reproduce"
Bullshit. see Mary Cheney. And there have been many individuals who have chose to reproduce without marriage. I even know one personally.
You know full well that there are myriad ways we can regulate SSP, just as we regulate all other aspects of medicine.
"No one has a right to sue their mother and father for the genes they are born with."
You may be right, but I doubt it. I'll bet if I had access to Lexis, I'd find a handful suits. Successful? I don't know, but I'll bet it's happened already.
Posted by: John | September 19, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Hey John Hosty-Grinnell, you're back! I hope you read why I had to answer "no" to your yes or no question (September 17, 2007 at 07:26 PM)
And I hope you check out some of the conversation I had with Christian (Genghis) while you were gone. His position is what I am fighting, his position is the reason I oppose same-sex marriage. I don't know why he opposes same-sex marriage, I think it is just to obfuscate the reasons I oppose same-sex marriage. He doesn't even think that marriages should have a right to use their own gametes to conceive together,so he is a much much bigger threat to marriage than same-sex couples are - especially given that same-sex conception is not illegal right now.
But his opposition to marriage apparently would continue even if people start doing same-sex conception, for some reason I am not sure about. I am in favor of SSM as long as SSC is legal, I only oppose SSM if we succeed in enacting an egg and sperm law, to preserve marriage's right to use their own genes to conceive children.
I'm hoping you will see that there are much much bigger issues involved here than we'd been considering before, and you will at least see the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise as an immediate solution to achieving equal protections. I portray it as a permanent solution, and will work to keep it that way, but I recognize that laws can be changed. And so if the egg and sperm law is ever repealed, when SSC is considered safe or there is a huge demand to do genetic manipulation and it is considered safe, we can make that change then. But in the meantime, shouldn't same-sex couples in every state get equal protections?
My plan is the plan to achieve that, before Christmas.
Posted by: John Howard | September 19, 2007 at 03:48 PM
Mr. Howard, I admire your fortitude. It takes real perserverance to continue to beat this horse when everyone is trying to take the whip out of your hand.
You Said in answer to my question whether or not you could support GLBT marriages if we had banned your Franken-babies:
"No. That would be very bad because it would mean that it is acceptable to take away the conception rights of a legally married couple. Why would that only apply to same-sex couples, if they are truly equal marriages?"
C'mon John. We all know that GLBT marriages are still not equal, even in Massachusetts. We are trying to create equality, but the federal government is still insisting that they not recognize our marriages. The inequality you claim you would not want is already in place. This is a hypothetical question geared to better understand what level of intolerance you have to the GLBT. Please answer it in the fashion it is meant.
I'm curious. Do you have a wife/girlfriend? Any children of your own? What is your social background? What is your education? Tell us a little more about yourself so we can get a better idea of how to credit your logic.
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 19, 2007 at 04:07 PM
LOL!!! John, you slay me.
Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 19, 2007 at 04:08 PM
In all respects other than having conception rights, I support equal protections for same-sex couples. The compromise is designed to achieve federal recognition, to achieve equal security and protections in all respects other than having conception rights.
If we take conception rights away from married couples (ie, if we enact an egg and sperm law and allow SSM), it would apply to all married couples. There is nothing explicit about marriage that says it guarantees conception rights, it is just thousands of years of understanding. It's tenuous. It could be taken away by careless incompatible laws. It would mean that the right to conceive together doesn't come from marriage anymore, it comes from experts making a risk assessment about the safety or ethics of each couple reproducing.
You should credit logic for its own logic. You are like the VOMers who wanted to quiz me on what church I went to or my stance on abortion in order to see if I was on their side or not. I don't like this being about me, I'm not running for anything, I have no character to assassinate, I am a reprehensible childless unmarried skirt-chaser (OK, maybe I might be preparing to run for Senate). I read Huxley and Hesse and CS Lewis's Abolition of Man and Enough by Bill McKibben, and I do this because no one else is, which amazes me.
Posted by: John Howard | September 19, 2007 at 04:42 PM
"I read Huxley and Hesse and CS Lewis's Abolition of Man and Enough by Bill McKibben, and I do this because no one else is, which amazes me."
I don't know why you're amazed. You are a voice in the wilderness and very few even know let alone care about your cause.
Posted by: John | September 19, 2007 at 04:45 PM
Now for a quick response to Mr. "ban SSM by banning SSP" Howard. On the subject of EBI(External Birth Incubation). YAH! I DO support it! Reason being through EBI we can eliminate nearly all stillbirths and misscariages. Eliminate 100% fetal alchohol syndrome, and fetal alchohol affects(including infant drug addiction). Eliminate 100% babies being born with HIV infection. Eliminate 100% female/mother deaths due to pregnancy complications. Do I support that? YUPPER! Now, through EBI technology, HETERO females who have had hysterectomies can once again have children. It's EFFICIENT, it's CLEAN and MOST importantly it's SAFE! It gaurantees that EVERY child "born" through EBI will have a equal, level playing field to begin life with. Something which a fair amount of "mothers" could give a flying ass rat's about! Type in "artificial uterus" in your search engine Mr. Howard. Have a nice read. =))
Posted by: musclehippy | September 20, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Musclehippy, do you realize that to "eliminate 100% fetal alcohol syndrome" you have to eliminate natural pregnancy altogether? I guess you must think that's a good idea. Are you going to make it illegal, or just so much more convenient to use the EBI that no woman would go through with a natural pregnancy? No doubt you'd heap moral disapproval on natural mothers (they're not 'clean') to dissuade them, but would that be enough? You want to 'eliminate 100%'.
Is this the future you want?
"In the Battletech Universe, almost every member of each of the Clan factions is born in an artificial uteri. In development they undergo a process that ensures their complete genetic health. They call themselves Truebirths, and feel they are superior to all who were born naturally, whom they call Freebirths."
I get the impression that you think you are a "Truebirth". Or maybe you just feel inferior because you aren't, you have Truebirth envy, Truebirth delusions.
Posted by: John Howard | September 20, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I support EBI to the hilt. Not as a replacement for natural pregnancy but a tool for those could benefit from it.
Posted by: John | September 20, 2007 at 01:23 PM