A commenter at the blogsite, Secular Right, kindly responded to my request for a plainly stated core meaning for SSM (Same-Sex Marriage).
Read his comment, here. The comment section there is now closed.
I'll quote Carlo in full below. I'll respond in a subsequent blogpost here at Opine and will invite Carlo to discuss his viewpoint further in our comment section.
Carlo said:
[Click here to read more below the fold]
I believe that the meaning of marriage is ultimately owned and defined by its participants in myriad ways for different reasons, so I reject the assumption that some social institution or policy has to be defined by some bullet-pointed list of “core” sociological principles or desired effects in order to be justified. However, I do think the question is interesting enough that I’d like to attempt an answer. I don’t think it’s the sort of answer you’re looking for, but in my opinion it strikes at the heart of the matter under discussion.
I think that, at it’s core, same-sex marriage is the attainment of equality for same-sex couples. That is, its full meaning cannot be derived independently, or only from universal features of human nature, but instead stems from three things: 1) the historically established existence and nature of opposite-sex marriage (including the privileged status and benefits that this institution confers), 2) the discrimination and inequality experienced by gays and lesbians throughout practically all of human history, and 3) the presumption that citizens in a democracy should enjoy freedom and equality under the law.
In the same way that, as you said, the nature of humankind is two-sexed, and the nature of human procreation is opposite-sexed, it is also the nature of humankind to have a minority of members that are attracted to those of the same sex. That minority, due perhaps in part to an orientation that was not conducive to procreation, but due also to ignorance, bigotry, and religious dogma, has suffered a vastly inferior social status throughout nearly all of human civilization. Its sexual behavior was considered obscene (and often criminal), its relationships unspeakable, its members invisible.
But with the advent of concepts such as “democracy”, “human rights”, and “equality”, there finally arrived a time when members of that minority sought to gain a status fully equal to their peers. This sought-after status comes in different forms, such as legal protections (i.e. employment nondiscrimination) and social acceptance (i.e. being “out” to friends and family). But a large part of what defines this minority is their relationships, and for this minority to be fully equal, their relationships have to be equal as well. Hence same-sex marriage.
You’re correct: at its core, same-sex marriage is not about love, sexual orientation, or attraction. It’s not unique or independent; in the absence of opposite-sex marriage, there would probably be no push or desire at all for same-sex marriage. And it’s definitely not foundational, since it relies on certain civilizational developments that occurred only recently in human history. It is, at its core, about equality. The true meaning of same-sex marriage is that it corrects a historical injustice by granting to its participants a status that is equal to that enjoyed by their heterosexual peers. Gaining that status, however, requires that it meaningfully resemble its counterpart in every possible way. Thus, it seeks to adopt the values and traditions that have become part of opposite-sex marriage: love, sexual attraction, weddings, monogamy; for the same reason it also seeks the same legal benefits and responsibilities. The only difference, as far as its advocates are concerned, is that its participants are couples of the same sex. And thus, as you requested, it becomes both “gay” and “marriage”, distinguishable from other relationships.
* * *
I'll attempt to summarize and will request that Carlo confirm, correct, or elaborate so that we can be sure that my reading of his remarks is fairly accurate, thusfar.
1. The meaning of marriage is particular to the individual. There are no universal features of the social institution of marriage.
--
2. The heart of the issue of SSM is as follows:
A. The full meaning of SSM depends on the prior existence and nature of marriage (i.e.the union of husband and wife), the inequality experienced by gays and lesbians, and the democratic idea of freedom and equality for all under the law.
B. There is a minority among humankind. Its social status has been inferior, historically, due to percieved obscenity of same-sex sexual behavior. That perception is ignorant, bigoted, and dogmatic.
C. The minority seeks equal status with the majority. For example, legal protections that prohibit distinctions based on same-sex sexual behavior; also social openness or acceptance.
D. This minority is largely defined by relationships. For the minority to be fully equal with the majority, relationships must be equal.
E. The core of SSM is not love, sexual orientation, nor attraction. It is not foundational. It has no independent claim for a preferential social status.
F. The core meaning is equality of sexual orientations; it corrects an historical injustice suffered by homosexual people. Equality means that SSM resembles marriage in every possible way. SSM is the adoption of values and traditions of marriage. It means the same legal benefits and legal responsiblities.
G. The only difference between SSM and marriage is that in SSM the relationship is one-sexed.
H. In this way the relationship type, SSM, is gay and marriage, and distinguishable from nonmarital kinds of arrangements and nonmarital types of relationships.
* * *
Note that the request I made is as follows:
The task is quite simple, given your certitude: plainly state the core meaning of “gay marriage”, that is its essentials without which it would be neither gay nor marriage. Then, draw the lines around that such that this relationship, by type, will be distinguishable from others. If these lines are sustainable, provide the basics of how the lines arise from the core or the essentials around which these lines are drawn.
* * *
Possibly related posts:
"Family Formation (and The Replacement of Marriage)."
"Following the Meaning of SSMers."
* * *
The comment section here is open for your thoughts on Carlo's remarks.
For now:
ReplyDeleteEquality means that SSM resembles marriage in every possible wayBut right there is the BIG problem. Even if legalized, it is different from marriage in ways which are major, not minor.
Hence, SSM attempts to call two things equal when they are clearly different. As such, it abuses the language and in an Orwellian sense not only distorts the meaning of the word "marriage", but also the word "equality".
Chairm, do you think I'm oversimplifying too much in saying that Carlo's basic premise is that regardless of whether SSM and marriage are really or could ever be truly equal, we should pretend that they are anyway so that those in same-sex relationships feel equal to those in opposite-sex relationships?
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that the law can not things which are greatly different in reality feel equal for very long. Soon the reality of the great difference (nature's, not the law's) reasserts itself, the only question being in what way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAh, thank you for taking the time to address this. I'm busy at work at the moment, and don't have the time to give the clarifications that your post requests. I will get back to this later on, hopefully tonight. (And this is a good time to say that, however long this discussion goes, I'm not usually going to have the time to give my responses right away). In the meantime, if you have any substantive criticisms or arguments against my comments, feel free to post them already; I'll be happy to address misunderstandings as they come.
ReplyDeleteTo R.K.'s first comment, with due respect, I think you may be conflating sameness and equality, and/or perhaps that you're conflating legal and social equality. In states and countries where SSM is legal, no one is arguing that SSM is exactly the same as OSM (by definition they aren't), but the two types of marriages ARE considered equal (and I believe also identical) under the law. Also, I would add that most SSM advocates feel (I suspect) that the ways in which SSM and OSM are different are indeed minor, or to put it another way, that they are the same in all of the most important ways.
Regarding R.K.'s second comment, I think you've gone beyond merely oversimplifying, and have crossed over into saying something I never stated nor implied. Nor do I believe that your statement logically flows from my arguments.
Carlo
Welcome, Carlo. Before I respond I'd rather know we are on the same page and reading the meaning the same way.
ReplyDeletePlease take your time to ensure that your meaning is understood. I've read what you've said, I'vetried to reiterate fairly. I will take your corrections or clarifications at face value.
Maybe a good place to start is the first point in my attempted summary. Step-by-step we can walk through your viewpoint.
Hi RK.
ReplyDeleteAt this point it is possible that my own summary has oversimplified here, there, or everywhere.
I do think that there is a strong hint that the emphasis is on equivalence rather than equality running through Carlo's remarks, but I may be misreading him. The SSM arugment is for change both in the cultural (or social, to use Carlo's term) and the legal contexts. There are obvious differences between the universals and the variables of marraige and I think Carlo's emphasis is on the variables -- both socially and legally -- as the common features of two very different things.
A typo of mine:
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that the law can not things which are greatly different in reality feel equal for very longShould read, of course, "my sense is that the law can not make things...."
Carlo: I think you may be conflating sameness and equality, and/or perhaps that you're conflating legal and social equality.No, I understand the difference, but law certainly can influence culture, and it is not at all unreasonable to say that the general public will interpret legal equality (legal nondifferentiation, is it not?) as that they are supposed to see the two things as being the same. What differences there are, thus, must be reduced to trivialities in the process.
Also, I would add that most SSM advocates feel (I suspect) that the ways in which SSM and OSM are different are indeed minor, or to put it another way, that they are the same in all of the most important ways.That is where we totally disagree.
Regarding R.K.'s second comment, I think you've gone beyond merely oversimplifying, and have crossed over into saying something I never stated nor implied. Nor do I believe that your statement logically flows from my arguments.I think that all hinges on my term "pretend that they are [equal] anyway", which you feel in no way follows from "make them equal legally". I understand it may seem like a huge stretch, but I am not at all sure that it is.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteAll right then. At the risk of derailing the discussion before it even starts, here it goes. You summarized:
"1. The meaning of marriage is particular to the individual."
The meaning, purpose, and/or structure of each individual marriage is particular to the individuals in question, yes. Many marry for traditional notions of love, commitment, monogamy, stability, and childrearing. But some marry for money, some so they can become US citizens, some so they wouldn't grow old by themselves, some on a ridiculous whim (like Britney Spears), and so forth. Even after the wedding, different practices and motivations come into play: some marriages are happy and others dysfunctional, some are swingers, or invite extra participants for threesomes; some choose to remain childless, and some stay together for the sake of a child. Some don't even cohabit; prison inmates can get married to women on the outside! There's variation across history and cultures as well; it can be about managing property, forging political alliances, etc. Even today, across societies marriages can be monogamous or polygamous, chosen or arranged; divorce may or may not be permitted. So yes, by and large the meaning of marriage is contingent on many factors including history, culture, and specific circumstances. The institution has evolved for millennia, and will continue to evolve.
"There are no universal features of the social institution of marriage."
Not having made any detailed historical or anthropological study of marriage, I'm reluctant to rule out that there are no universal features whatsoever. The ones you stated before (sex integration, provision for responsible procreation, foundational to civil society) sound plausibly universal to me (and for the sake of argument I'll concede that they are). But I wouldn't necessarily reduce marriage to just what is universal, or even say that what is universal is necessarily what is most important about marriage. For example: if you went up to a happily couple on their wedding day and told them that their marriage was about these three things, they might look at you as if you were crazy. They might say, instead, that their marriage is a binding promise of mutual love and commitment, declared in front of their family and friends. Even though none of these things are universal about marriage.
Ultimately, marriage is a complicated and somewhat messy institution, resulting from a combination of historical, cultural, legal, economic and religious factors. But it does commonly afford a special status to its participants, and is frequently considered to be a state worth pursuing. And the fact that it's essentially closed off to a portion of society is, I believe, a state of affairs worth correcting.
"2. The heart of the issue of SSM is as follows:
ReplyDeleteA. The full meaning of SSM depends on the prior existence and nature of marriage (i.e.the union of husband and wife), the inequality experienced by gays and lesbians, and the democratic idea of freedom and equality for all under the law."
Yes. That is, the reasons SSM legalization is being sought after in this time and place cannot be fully understood without looking at the cultural and historical context in which this has come about. There are obvious reasons why the movement has progressed largely in Europe and the US, but not, say, the Middle East. I'd particularly note that, without understanding the extent of the discrimination that gays and lesbians have faced and continue to face, you're never going to understand why we agitate for marriage equality.
"B. There is a minority among humankind. Its social status has been inferior, historically, due to percieved obscenity of same-sex sexual behavior. That perception is ignorant, bigoted, and dogmatic."
ReplyDeleteNot quite. Yes, homosexuality has always existed across history and culture. But why that minority has been oppressed, I cannot say exactly. Is that oppression due to disgust at same-sex behavior? Or does the oppression come from somewhere else, and in turn inspire disgust? Is it necessarily ignorant to find same-sex behavior disgusting or obscene? For that matter, IS it obscene? What is obscenity, anyway? But I digress.
My point here is simply this: Gays and lesbians exist. We always have, and probably always will. We've faced rampant discrimination in the past. Hopefully, not so much in the future. At the root of that injustice are ignorance and bigotry, often cloaked in religious dogma.
"C. The minority seeks equal status with the majority. For example, legal protections that prohibit distinctions based on same-sex sexual behavior; also social openness or acceptance."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. "Equal status" might not be the best term to use, one might say that we'd like to be afforded the same dignity and respect. We'd like for gay teenagers not to fear being disowned by their parents and ridiculed by their peers if people found out they were gay. We'd like to be considered just as suitable for teaching careers, or adoption, or priesthood as our straight counterparts. We'd like to walk openly in our neighborhoods, and perhaps kiss or hold hands, without the fear that someone will assault us out of fear and hatred. And yes, we'd like to be able to stand in front of our loved ones, and promise to love and commit to each other, and have that union enjoy the same recognition by society and law that any straight marriage has.
I should add though, that not all of these things might be attainable right away, in fact full and total equality might never be attainable. Legal protections have existed for women and racial minorities for decades, but both groups still experience discrimination and disenfranchisement. As always, much depends on cultural and historical contingencies.
I should also add, your phrase "legal protections that prohibit distinctions based on same-sex sexual behavior", though largely correct, might be overly broad. Some distinctions might be reasonable or permissible; in the case of gender for example, men and women have separate public restrooms. Although I can't think of any necessary legal distinctions based on sexual behavior, at the moment.
"D. This minority is largely defined by relationships. For the minority to be fully equal with the majority, relationships must be equal."
ReplyDeleteLargely defined by the relationships we seek, yes. But not just our minority: sexual orientation is a large part of ANYONE'S identity. It's a significant component of who we are, as human beings, because it says much about who we love, and what sorts of connections we make with the people around us. And yes, since we didn't choose our sexual orientation, our relationships shouldn't automatically be denied the sort of status and recognition that heterosexual relationships can readily access. Otherwise, any equality we might attain would be hollow and incomplete.
"E. The core of SSM is not love, sexual orientation, nor attraction."
ReplyDeleteThis is much trickier to disentangle. See my comment on #1 above. I believe that yes, in the context of this discussion, the core of SSM is not love, sexual orientation, or attraction, any more than these things are the core of OSM. Nevertheless, these things are still central to the concept of marriage, any marriage, as seen by Western society. Likewise, I've stated that the core of SSM is equality. But gay and lesbian couples do not get married in order to merely achieve equality. They get married because they love each other, and want to commit to each other legally.
"It is not foundational."
No, it is not foundational to civil society, in the way that OSM is and always has been. Nevertheless, its legalization will form the foundation for a more equal society, and greater support and protection for untold numbers of couples and families. So in a sense, it also is foundational.
"It has no independent claim for a preferential social status."
We don't seek any sort of *preferential* social status. We seek equal status. We don't seek for our relationships to be elevated above other types of relationships. We seek for it to be elevated up to the same level already enjoyed by other relationships that are, in many respects, the same. It's an important distinction. But yes, in the sense that the status we seek is defined by one that already exists, our claim for elevated status is not independent, that is, not constructed out of thin air.
***
I've written much and will stop for now; I'll try to continue later or perhaps tomorrow.
Just one point for now, Carlo:
ReplyDeleteThe institution has evolved for millennia, and will continue to evolve.x
You cannot just assume that it will continue to evolve any more than you can assume that a species will continue to evolve and not become extinct (as most species throughout time have).
Is selection a factor in the development of culture, or not? This is a critical question to ask here.
All right then, R.K. I was mistaken, marriage will evolve only for as long as it exists. And yes, selection is a factor (but not the only one!) in the development of culture. (I suspect where you're going with this, and I'm curious to see if I'm correct).
ReplyDeletemarriage will evolve only for as long as it exists.More specifically, only until something causes it to collapse, just as a species will evolve only until something causes it to go extinct. (Of course, it is also a myth that every species or genus keeps evolving at a rapid pace, look at the Lingula brachiopod, the opossum, or the Ginkgo).
ReplyDeleteThe lack of a totally androgynized definition of marriage----and that IS what same-sex-marriage as being proposed and even adopted now is---in any past societies on a long-term basis does not prove that it has been selected against. But it is highly suspicious, and strongly suggests that possibility, especially because the idea is so easy to come by that the retort that "no society has ever thought of it or tried it" seems highly improbable. (Indeed, there are reasons, some following from the explanations of those who argue that it's absence is due to something other than cultural selection, why it is likely to at least have been tried, and seems very puzzling if no society has ever thought of or tried it). At the very least, the absence of long-term, established SSM throughout human culture cries out for a better explanation than the ones I've heard from its proponents.
R.K.,
ReplyDelete1. We're not advocating for a "totally androgynized" definition of marriage. Human nature being what it is, boys will still usually fall in love with girls and vice versa, and the vast majority of marriages will still likely be heterosexual. And we're not asking that marriage be stripped of any notion of gender (I can't even imagine what a totally androgynized marriage might look like). We're just asking that it be expanded to include a minority.
2. Your argument from evolution is a bit difficult to unpack. Are you arguing from the perspective of memetics, or group selection? If mimetics, just because a meme has survived does not make it beneficial or just, it just means that it was more successful at replicating than opposing memes. Indeed, many widespread memes today are pernicious and destructive to the societies that harbor them.
If arguing from a group selection perspective, then it's worth pointing out that same-sex unions in various forms have existed throughout much of human history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_same-sex_unions
True, they didn't persist. But there's no reason to believe that the downfall of those practices was due to its inherently unstable or destructive nature, rather than the end of those civilizations (for complex historical, economic, demographic and militaristic reasons that are likely entirely unrelated to how a minority of citizens chose their partners). In any case, if you believe that it was selected against, the onus is on you to provide evidence of such selection, rather than merely insinuate it based on its historical absence. Personally, I don't think the fact that some sort of civilizational development is entirely new has any strong implication of past negative selection. Imagine if America's founding fathers abandoned the project because they suspected that constitutional democracies, never having persisted, must have been tried and failed in the past.
3. In any case, as I noted above, the reason that the modern concept of SSM is being advocated for only today is that the various civilizational and legal developments that have made it possible have occurred only relatively recently, and only in certain contexts and cultures. I've already mentioned several, including the embrace of principles such as democracy, equality, and human rights, during the Enlightenment. It also wasn't until 1948 that Kinsey revolutionized the concept of sexual orientation, laying the groundwork for how we understand it today, and until 1973 that it was removed from the DSM; before which gays and lesbians had little means by which to properly understand their orientation and identity. But most importantly, gays and lesbians have been forced into the closet for most of human history! Until recently, mainstream society hated and feared us; we were surveilled, fired, outcast, jailed merely for showing affection, congregating into groups or dressing differently (I suggest you read up on the history of the Stonewall riots). Even our most private sexual behavior was itself illegal, and wasn't fully decriminalized by the Supreme Court until 2003! How could we have agitated for marriage rights, when our very existence was deemed unacceptable by society at large, when we were hidden and isolated for fear of social opprobrium or criminal sanction?
To continue:
ReplyDelete"F. The core meaning is equality of sexual orientations; it corrects an historical injustice suffered by homosexual people."
Not quite, its core purpose is equality of human beings in dignity and worth regardless of sexual orientation. In so far as people were NOT considered equal regardless of sexual orientation in the past, then the attainment of that equality corrects that historical injustice.
"Equality means that SSM resembles marriage in every possible way."
No, equality does not mean resemblance. But in order for SSM to achieve the same social and legal status that OSM does, then it must resemble it as much as possible. If gay men decided to have random sexual liaisons with multiple partners and call that "marriage", such arrangements would never be taken seriously or held in the same regard as traditional marriage, no matter what legal recognition they might receive. And if same sex couples had all of the legal rights and benefits of marriage, but everyone called the arrangement a civil union, then it wouldn't have the same status either. We're not trying to create an entirely new institution here. We're trying to participate and be allowed in an existing one, which can be achieved with only a single simple legal modification.
"SSM is the adoption of values and traditions of marriage. It means the same legal benefits and legal responsiblities."
I would put it this way: people who seek to enter into same-sex marriages for the most part seek to adopt the values and traditions of traditional marriage, and desire the same legal benefits and responsibilities. Those same-sex couples who have no wish to adopt those values and traditions (and I suspect there are many such couples), and/or have no wish to gain the same legal benefits and responsibilities, have no incentive to get married.
Hi Carlo, I appreciate your efforts. To the greatest extent possible, I'd like to give you a platform for making clear your viewpoint. I think you have articulated a good summary of one of the best arguments in favor of SSM. It is very like that of Jon Rauch; perhaps you have read his argument for "gay marriage"?
ReplyDelete"G. The only difference between SSM and marriage is that in SSM the relationship is one-sexed."
ReplyDeleteI may have been mistaken in stating this. My purpose in stating this was to emphasize that same-sex and traditional marriages are far more similar than they are different, and that they are the same in all of the most important ways.
But thinking about it further, I realized that there are almost certainly significant differences, on average, between men and women, in terms of the way they think, feel, and relate to themselves and each other. Thus, marriages between two men, two women, or a man and woman, are probably going to differ in some statistically significant ways (I've heard, for example, that lesbian couples are less prone to divorce). Same-sex and opposite-sex couples also face different expectations within the cultural sphere; I imagine opposite-sex couples would be under greater pressure from their parents to produce grandchildren (while some same-sex couples might be lucky if their parents were speaking to them at all!) And of course, there are the obvious procreative differences that arise, which suggests that same-sex couples are far more likely to adopt or utilize modern reproductive technologies. But from the perspective of human rights and legal equality, I can't see why any of these differences should matter.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your compliment, as well as the platform. I think the main reason I'm putting so much effort into this is that it forces me to clarify in my own mind my reasons for advocating SSM. Certainly, my understanding of the topic is significantly better than it was just yesterday! But no, I have not read Jon Rauch's argument for gay marriage, although I did enjoy his Atlantic article on introversion.
"H. In this way the relationship type, SSM, is gay and marriage, and distinguishable from nonmarital kinds of arrangements and nonmarital types of relationships."
ReplyDeleteBecause the SSM that we advocate for is merely the expansion of traditional marriage to same-sex couples, then yes it is clearly marriage, and clearly gay (and lesbian). From this perspective, it becomes just as easy to distinguish SSM from other types of relationships as it is to distinguish OSM from those same relationships. Or to put it another way, whatever barrier exists between traditional marriage and polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, is the same barrier that exists between SSM and those things.
***
And I believe that covers everything for now. Chairm, a friendly word of advice: have the good sense to tackle all of these points at a slower pace that I did. I've spent most of this evening thinking and typing, and I am exhausted. We'll continue this tomorrow. Good night.
Carlo, as important as it is for both of us to gain a shared understanding of your viewpoint, it is also important to clarify where we disagree.
ReplyDeleteAt Secular Right I outlined my view but, unfortunately, the discussion was near an end, the comment section closed, and the few respones mocked my attempt to be thorough. By contrast, you endeavored to match thorough with thorough. Hence I do wish to pursue this exchange even if, at times, we merely reach "disagreement" on significant differences. That might seem like a modest goal, but given the tone of the marriage debate I think it would be very useful to readers and others who comment here or who visit to comment from elsewhere.
At least we will seek, and I hope we will come to, understand each other's viewpoint more clearly -- more accurately -- and perhaps avoid the syndrome of talking past one other or talking to brick walls instead of with each other.
I'll continue the step-by-step process of restating your remarks in my own words and seeking your confirmation, correction, or clarification. At some point I may lift a topic from this discussion and make a new blogpost to make it easier for readers to follow us.
If that seems reasonable to you, then, as my guest, I invite you to respond in your own time, one small step at-a-time.
Cheers,
Chairm
Carlo,
ReplyDeleteI TWICE had my post half completed and then lost the whole thing by accident, so I will have to start over again tomorrow.
But, for now, let me state what my main points will be, and in response to:
We're not advocating for a "totally androgynized" definition of marriageActually, yes you are, if the definition of marriage that you advocate is "between any two persons".
I can't even imagine what a totally androgynized marriage might look likeNo, just what a totally androgynized cultural definition of marriage would look like, and it's the one currently being advocated and adopted.
We're just asking that it be expanded to include a minority.I know that's what you seriously believe, but what you advocate will go way beyond that.
It will not be two de facto types of marriage, one for straights, one for gays, though that is how it must be presented to heterosexuals if they are to accept SSM. After a while, it will inevitably be ONE type of marriage, for everyone, heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. The perception will be that anyone can marry either gender, regardless of their orientation.
Hint: Bisexuals are the key to this inevitable change in perception. Hollywood will speed it along.
Are you arguing from the perspective of memetics, or group selection?Both, but ultimately it's of course about group selection.
If arguing from a group selection perspective, then it's worth pointing out that same-sex unions in various forms have existed throughout much of human history:But never with an androgynized cultural definition of marriage as is advocated today.
In any case, if you believe that it was selected against, the onus is on you to provide evidence of such selectionActually not, for reasons I'll explain.
Imagine if America's founding fathers abandoned the project because they suspected that constitutional democracies, never having persisted, must have been tried and failed in the pastA good but imperfect analogy.
Yes, I'm frustrated about losing the posts, but if I can relax, cool off, and sit down and post tomorrow I will have more to say.
RK, thanks for jumping in.
ReplyDeleteI would like to encourage commeners to focus on Carlo's viewpoint -- clarifying our mutual understanding of it -- rather than arguing the merits and demrits.
RK, I can see that your exchange with Carlo has helped clarify his viewpoint and that's very helpful.
My effort is to help clarify what Carlo means, to the extent that we can mutually agree on his meaning. If the presentation of your own objections to that viewpoint begins to detract or overwhelm this effort, would you be agreeble to hold-off for awhile? I don't think that has happened, yet, but it is something to keep in mind.
Thanks, again, RK for commenting and questioning. Your contributions have always been constructive.
Chairm, I must say that it is refreshing to see you can be civil with people you disagree with. The exchange between you and Carlo has me curious as to why you can't show that same respect to some of the others that have posted here. I will sit back and lurk on this thread to see what else transpires.
ReplyDeleteChairm,
ReplyDeleteYou're most welcome, and I see your point. I'll be back later to see how the discussion is going.
Carlo, thank you for the civilness in your posts here. I hope to continue the discussion later today.
Chairm, R.K.
ReplyDeleteI too have had many experiences of people talking past each other, or spiraling down into meaningless ad hominem attacks, in discussions such as these. I'm completely in agreement that this should be avoided, so I'm appreciative of your efforts for understanding and clarification, as well as your acknowledgement of my own similar attempts. That being said, I've already endeavored at great length to illuminate my arguments, and in the absence of further requests for clarification, I have little more to add at the moment. Indeed, I'm quite happy and willing to debate the merits and flaws in my own arguments, in fact that was what I came here to do. So I have no problem with hearing R.K.'s or anyone else's objections. After all, he's already formed the beginnings of an argument which, if I'm not mistaken, hints at no less than the collapse of Western civilization! How can I not be eager to hear the rest?
Carlo, you listed the things you are asking for when you speak of "equality", all of which seemed reasonable enough to me, but you didn't mention one that is very important. Do you demand the equal right to attempt to conceive children together? Would you accept a ban on same-sex conception that limited everyone's pool of people we can biologically reproduce with to people of the other sex, or do you believe that people should have an equal right to attempt to have children with someone of either sex? I'm referring to new technology being developed to make "female sperm" and "male eggs" from stem cells, or perhaps other methods, to actually create biological offspring. Is the right to attempt that one of your demands?
ReplyDeleteJohn Howard,
ReplyDeleteHmm. That's certainly a direction I didn't expect this discussion to take, and to be honest I don't quite see the relevance. Same-sex conception? I wasn't aware that any such technology existed, or that there's any discernible demand for such a thing from SSM advocates. It's not something I've given much thought, either. Nevertheless, provided that the technology were sufficiently advanced that resulting embryos suffered no defects or unnecessary/excessive deaths, I don't quite see the ethical problem in allowing such technologies to be used. Although to be fair, I find the whole idea to be somewhat disturbing, since the technology would render males obsolete.
Well, certainly the technology is not sufficiently advanced now, so you would accept a ban now? It's silly to insist that it be legal when it can't even be done, when agreeing on a ban would allow so much progress and improve lives of gay people all over the country. I have proposed a resolution to the debate called The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise that basically trades the right to attempt same-sex conception for federal recognition of Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights". Those Civil Unions would provide all the benefits and obligations you have listed, the only thing they wouldn't provide is the right to conceive children together that every marriage ought to retain.
ReplyDeleteI think you're going to have to explain further. I don't see how your proposed compromise addresses the very real concerns of people on either side of the debate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, your first sentence is illogical; accepting a ban now would preclude such technology from ever being used, regardless how advanced it becomes.
Well, a ban could be repealed if Congress ever decides it is ethical and should be allowed, but I would hope that we would recognize that it could never be ethical and not put any resources into developing it, and accept that it is a permanent ban. Many of the biggest benefits of the ban will only be realized if the ban is considered permanent.
ReplyDeleteAnd the compromise addresses everyone's concerns: it ends same-sex marriage and protects marriage as a man and a woman, and further protects marriage's right to conceive children together, and it gives same-sex couples every single one of the benefits and protections you have asked for in the form of Civil Unions.
I'm forced to conclude that you haven't paid attention to my lengthy explanations above, or the arguments of many others who have advocated for SSM. Any sort of "civil union" compromise wouldn't address the concerns for dignity and equality that advocates seek, and indeed would be a "separate-but-equal" arrangement that is far short of satisfactory.
ReplyDeleteAlso, at the risk of derailing this discussion further into a topic I'm still not convinced is entirely relevant, I'd like to ask why you're so adamant that same-sex conception is unethical and destructive to society?
I think the meaning of marriage is up to the two individuals it involves, just like it has always been. If people want to marry out of religious tradition, let them. Likewise for others who feel marriage is about children. But there are some of us who marry out of love and that is also a valid reason to enter into a lifetime commitment contract via civil marriage.
ReplyDeleteIn a society with such diversity how do we give equal representation to all while narrowing the legal definition of marriage?
Carlo,
ReplyDeleteI think there is more to clarify.
On the first point, for example, I'll restate and ask you to correct, clarrify, or confirm.
You said: "I wouldn't necessarily reduce marriage to just what is universal, or even say that what is universal is necessarily what is most important about marriage."
The basic purpose of the law, and of the marriage debate, is to identify marriage and to distinguish it from other kinds of arrangements and types of relationships.
That is, by its core meaning and by the limitations around that core meaning, society can know what marriage is and what marriage is not.
It seems to me that the essentials are not easily discarded as not what is most important. That the universals likewise are not so easily put aside.
So please confirm that in your view, the most important features of marriage are not its essentials and not its universals.
* * *
I'll add some context.
Tradition and Marriage.[T]he core meaning of marriage is not "traditional". It is universal. Gutting marriage of its core is not merely adding a new tradition to marriage. It would be a radical hollowing-out of marriage itself.
Tradition and the bedrock social institution.* * *
You said: "For example: if you went up to a happily couple on their wedding day and told them that their marriage was about these three things, they might look at you as if you were crazy."
Quite the contrary. The two come to be united as husband and wife and to integrate as man and woman. They consent to all that marriage entails which does include the marital presumption of paternity. Where people undertake premarital preparations with a Catholic priest, or other pastor, the love and the commitment has this context. It is also embedded in the legal system and these requirements are vigorously enforced.
I understand that SSM argumentation insists otherwise, but that is due to the rhetorical problem of discounting, deeply, the core meaning of the social institution and its sustainable boundaries. Hence, as I think you might confirm, for you the variables are more definitive of marriage than are its universals.
* * *
Some more context to consider:
Marriage is a public type of relationship. It is a sexual type of relationship. Its sexual aspect is key to its public aspect.
People enter marriage, they do not create it out of whole cloth. They enter a social institution which has meaning due to the societal significance of its essentials, as a type of relationship.
You have explained, I think, that for you the legal change is necessary if society is to make room for the cultural change you favor. So the legal requirements and the legal boundaries are vitally important, yes?
I think you might agree on that point. Which then sheds a different light on your previous remarks on point number one.
* * *
John Howard, the civility with which I discuss the marriage issue is the rule, not the exception, even when taunted by certain antagonists.
As we have discussed previously, at length, there is no such thing as "same-sex conception". What you have in mind is an asexual attempt to manufacture human beings. For instance, there is no conception in cloning. And, it is important to keep in mind that human manufacture is not human procreation.
Also, John Howard, please read the comment I left for RK earlier, @ 5/19/2009 11:07:00 PM. Let me know if you agree with that.
Conception is an idea, Chairm, you are thinking of "fertilization", perhaps. There mere concept of a child from two people of the same sex is what I am opposed to, however it is done. The way it might most likely be done is by fertilizing an egg with a stem cell derived "sperm" from another woman, or fertilizing a stem cell derived "egg" from a man with his partner's sperm. And of course I am focused on extracting what Carlo means by equality.
ReplyDeleteCarlo, dignity and equality are not served by allowing labs to manufacture children for same-sex couples. It actually offends the dignity of gay people to imply that they require technological help to be equal to everybody else. Gay people's dignity is served by shunning the offer of human manufacture as ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that people should not have equal right to reproduce with people of their own sex, we all should only have the right to reproduce with someone of the other sex. So, it is wrong to demand full equality for same-sex couples. What we should demand in terms of equality is the equal right to marry and use our own unmodified genes to procreate with our spouse, but that requires prohibiting the use of modified genes and same-sex marriage.
I am so adamant about preserving our right to use our own unmodified genes because I think using modified genes to create people would be a terrible oppressive and expensive and needless endeavor, and we should preserve the need for both sexes to cooperate with each other to reproduce. It's not just same-sex conception I am concerned about, but all forms of creating people that are not from a man and a woman's consensual unmodified sexual reproduction. The Compromise I propose would ban cloning and all germline genetic engineering, and preserve everyone's equality by preserving everyone's equal right to conceive with their own genes. It's very important that we don't move to human manufacture and eugenics and oppressive coercive limits on natural reproduction.
Please Google a bit to research this area before assuming that it should be legal. You are puttng the cart before the horse, arriving at your position on same-sex conception based on your demand for same-sex marriage. You have hit the wall now, and need to rethink your position. It's far better for gay people to concede that same-sex conception (and all human manufacture) is not one of your demands, and accept that there are rights that hetero couples should have that homo couples shouldn't, and then see how that affects the ability to get equal protections that you DO care about. Re-examine your priorities, not that you know that equality is not one of them.
John Howard, you used the specific term, "same-sex conception", to mean the same thing, essentially, as conception, with the opposite-sex part dropped.
ReplyDeleteTricking an ova into treating the material of another ova as sperm would be inrinsic to human manufacture, not human fertlization.
Your presentation of this idea, such as it is, would amount to the absurdity of an individual claiming to be fertile through cloning; or claiming that the lack of the other sex is a form of infertility. The difference between fertilizaton, procreation, conception -- the difference between these and manufacture are intrinsic to your own strong case against the experimentation that you have highlighted.
Anyway, in terms of equality, yes, you are pursuing a line of reasoning with Carlo that does appear to flow from his previous remarks about human dignity. Indeed, I'd say the same about the need to distinguish between responsible procreation and all forms of human manufacture.
Carlo, it is fair to say that John Howard is asking you about the essentials, the universals, of marriage but with a focus on the prospect of making the liberty to procreate together, within marriage, much more ulnverable to government intrusions, should SSM be merged with marriage in the law. So perhaps you could clarify your viewpoint of what makes marraige, "marriage". What are its sustainable boundaries.
"The basic purpose of the law, and of the marriage debate, is to identify marriage and to distinguish it from other kinds of arrangements and types of relationships."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The basic purpose of marriage law, I think, is to recognize and enforce a contract of rights and obligations being entered into by two parties (and their families). Furthermore, the law is meant to provide a basis for settling disputes regarding that contract in court. On a case-to-case basis, the structure, purpose, and meaning of that contract can vary depending on culture, law, and circumstance, but more generally, the law is meant to reflect cultural norms regarding that contract. I don't agree that the purpose of the law is to define what marriage is or is supposed to be, or that it is to exclude or make distinctions from other types of contracts.
"That is, by its core meaning and by the limitations around that core meaning, society can know what marriage is and what marriage is not."
To explain further, I think you have the relationship between law and society (in this specific case) backwards. The law is not meant to dictate or inform society of what marriage is and is not. Rather, the law is meant as a declaration or expression of what society wishes; and political tension arises when society is itself divided on an issue and thus the law is unable to accurately reflect it (e.g. abortion), or when the law does not properly reflect what society desires (e.g. marijuana laws, sort of).
Put it this way. There are many people, both gay and straight, who sincerely believe that the contracts and arrangements entered into by committed same-sex couples are indeed marriage, in the sense that these relationships embody what they personally believe to be the most important features of marriage (love, commitment, cohabitation, etc.). This can be the case even when said arrangements are not recognized as marriage under the law. Are these people then delusional, or mistaken, simply because they do not agree the legal definition of what marriage?
Even more generally though, I will agree that the relationship between law and culture can be very complex, and as a practical matter, the arrow of causation can point in both directions.
More later.
As a small but important aside, I'd like to focus a bit on your assertion of "marital presumption of paternity". I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by this. I take it that you mean that, in a marriage, when a wife conceives a child, the husband is legally assumed under law to be the father?
ReplyDeleteI know little of the specifics of marriage and family law, but I'm not certain that this is the case. Let's consider the scenario in which a wife cheats on her husband, and conceives of a child from another man. Out of guilt, she then confesses this to her husband, so there are no secrets. When the child is born, would the name of the father on the birth certificate not be the true, biological father, and not the husband? Would it not be the biological father that has legal rights and obligations regarding the upbringing and care of the child? And would this not be the case regardless of the marital status of the people involved? Or am I mistaken on this point?
John Howard,
ReplyDeleteYou've touched on complex bioethical issues that go well beyond the scope of this discussion; furthermore you're focusing on a policy that no one I know of is seriously advocating; so to be honest I'm extremely reluctant to pursue this line of argumentation, on the grounds of its practical irrelevance. However, I'll admit to being somewhat morbidly curious as to where this might go (as a purely intellectual matter), so if you'll indulge in some of my unwillingness to take the matter as seriously as you do, I'm willing to argue the odd point here and there.
Specifically, this:
"Carlo, dignity and equality are not served by allowing labs to manufacture children for same-sex couples. It actually offends the dignity of gay people to imply that they require technological help to be equal to everybody else. Gay people's dignity is served by shunning the offer of human manufacture as ridiculous."
It doesn't offend my dignity in the least to be told that I require technological assistance in order to reproduce. In fact, given my unwillingness to have relations with a woman, I actually do require such assistance! I like to think that we gays and lesbians are, after all, a naturally occurring abnormality. It IS strange, in a way, that our sexual orientation precludes natural procreation; it remains a scientific mystery as to why exactly homosexuality persists in all sorts of species. But none of this has any bearing on our dignity and worth, or our status as equals alongside our heterosexual peers. (After all, is a sterile man somehow less worthy of dignity and respect?)
"So perhaps you could clarify your viewpoint of what makes marraige, "marriage". What are its sustainable boundaries."
ReplyDeleteWith respect, I think you make a mistake in trying to understand what marriage is by determining what it is not. I'd rather not define marriage by its boundaries, but rather by its substance. That substance, as I noted earlier, is an amorphous thing defined by many factors, and quite difficult to pin down. But to say that marriage is not, for example, brother-sister incest, tells us little about what marriage actually is.
"I understand that SSM argumentation insists otherwise, but that is due to the rhetorical problem of discounting, deeply, the core meaning of the social institution and its sustainable boundaries. Hence, as I think you might confirm, for you the variables are more definitive of marriage than are its universals."
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent, yes, I do believe that certain variable features of marriage are more central to its core meaning and purpose than its universals. For example, I think that heartfelt love and a genuine desire for lifelong commitment shared between two men or two women, though far from universal, embody marriage far more meaningfully than did the "integration of man and woman" achieved in Britney Spears's whimsical 55-hour marriage, or than one in which a husband beats and abuses his wife. And to the extent that the law should stay out of peoples' private choices and affairs, I believe it should recognize all of these relationships as marriages. (Although I would hope that the battered wife would get a divorce and file charges!)
"You have explained, I think, that for you the legal change is necessary if society is to make room for the cultural change you favor. So the legal requirements and the legal boundaries are vitally important, yes?
ReplyDeleteI think you might agree on that point. Which then sheds a different light on your previous remarks on point number one."
Yes, they are important. Specifically, in order to attain the cultural change we favor, the legal requirements and boundaries of SSM should mirror those of OSM as much as possible, I believe. It wouldn't be sufficient for us to get only a subset of marriage rights and responsibilities, for example. But I don't quite see what you're getting at regarding my remarks on point #1.
It doesn't offend my dignity in the least to be told that I require technological assistance in order to reproduce.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I said. It offends gay people's dignity to be told that equality and dignity requires that society research and develop and allow genetic engineering so that gay people can procreate together like a man and a woman can. There is dignity in accepting that homosexual relationships will not produce children, and it is very undignified to imply there is something that needs "fixing" about that situation.
My Compromise is not irrelevant, it is the best idea I have seen to resolve the marriage debate and give each side what it is fighting for, without giving up too much. And you are in a position to set it in motion to bring equal protections to same-sex couples in every state, without destroying Obama's presidency, just by agreeing to it. Please don't demand to be allowed to try to make offspring with another man when it can't even be done, and hardly anyone wants to do it, just to be able to claim equality with both-sex couples, when doing so not only holds back getting all the benefits and protections that same-sex couples need, but also threatens everyone's conception rights and opens the door to designer babies. That's too important to let it get decided by inadvertently allowing it through same-sex marriage. It needs to be discussed seriously for a long time separately from the other aspects of marriage.
"That's not what I said. It offends gay people's dignity to be told that equality and dignity requires that society research and develop and allow genetic engineering so that gay people can procreate together like a man and a woman can. There is dignity in accepting that homosexual relationships will not produce children, and it is very undignified to imply there is something that needs "fixing" about that situation."
ReplyDeleteAh, I get it now. Yes, I agree. (It's sort of like the "mutant cure" in the third X-Men movie!)
"My Compromise is not irrelevant, it is the best idea I have seen to resolve the marriage debate and give each side what it is fighting for, without giving up too much."
I assure you, the compromise you suggested gives up too much from my side of things, because we don't get the word "marriage". I can't speak for those on the other side of the debate, but I'm fairly sure many of them are opposed to giving even the basic legal protections and benefits to same-sex couples, mainly for religious reasons. So it's not likely to satisfy either side.
"Please don't demand to be allowed to try to make offspring with another man when it can't even be done, and hardly anyone wants to do it, just to be able to claim equality with both-sex couples,"
I'm not demanding it. As far as I know, no one is. And as we apparently agree, I DON'T think the ability to make offspring with another man is a prerequisite for equality, so I have no reason to demand it.
"when doing so not only holds back getting all the benefits and protections that same-sex couples need, but also threatens everyone's conception rights and opens the door to designer babies."
This would be true if someone of importance were actually offering this deal, and were in a position to deliver on it (no offense).
"That's too important to let it get decided by inadvertently allowing it through same-sex marriage. It needs to be discussed seriously for a long time separately from the other aspects of marriage."
Ahh, I think I finally understand what you're getting at, and in retrospect it was plainly obvious. You're worried that if SSM is legalized, same-sex couples will seek same-sex fertilization, opening a Pandora's box of genetic experimentation on human manufacture. I think your fears are unnecessary for several reasons:
1) As you stated yourself, the necessary technology doesn't exist yet, and
2) There isn't any clamor to use such technology yet, so
3) There's still plenty of time to debate the bioethical issues involved; and finally
4) If that technology DID come about, it could conceivably be used whether or not SSM were legal (same as how you don't need to be married to avail of in vitro fertilization), so I see the two issues as independent.
Don't worry, if such technology did arise, and there were any significant demand for it from any sector of society, then there would certainly be a major national debate on the topic, much as there have been debates on IVF, cloning, genetic discrimination, GMOs, and all sorts of other reproductive and genetic controversies that have arisen in recent years.
If I am allowed to reproduce with a woman, but I am prohibited from attempting to with a man, then those relationships do not have equal rights. You now claim that you are not demanding that right, so you apparently accept that same-sex couples should not have equal rights. Once you've accepted that, then your demand for calling a same-sex union "marriage" becomes rather pointless, doesn't it? Different relationships with different rights should have different names, calling them the same name implies that both-sex marriages have the same rights as same-sex ones, which means you are saying that no marriage has a right to conceive together with their own genes. That's frightening, in this day and age of eugenic sperm donation and genetic engineering. I think you are harming way too many people here - you are keeping same-sex couples from attaining benefits they need, and recklessly tossing away every marriage's right to conceive together.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are hardline opponents of Civil Unions, just as there are people who insist on same-sex marriage, and those people will think the compromise gives up too much. But they are the fringe extremists. The vast middle is fine with Civil Unions, and Congress listens to the vast middle. So it could pass easily, if it were put before Congress.
And don't forget, you could use the word 'marriage' if you wanted to, it just wouldn't actually be a legal marriage, because it wouldn't have conception rights. No one would arrest you for saying you were getting married, and this is my husband, etc. But the document in the file cabinet at city Hall would say "Civil Union", and you wouldn't have the sine non qua essential right that married couples have always had and always should have.
John: I think the meaning of marriage is up to the two individuals it involves, just like it has always been.x
ReplyDeleteBy that token, though, why can't it be up to the three or more individuals.
I'm not saying you or anyone else here is advocating that, nor am I "comparing" it with SSM, it's just that your statement begs this question.
Carlo,
ReplyDeleteBear with me a little longer. I've been busy today, and need to unwind a bit. I do have a lot I'd love to discuss with you. Maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow.
After all, he's already formed the beginnings of an argument which, if I'm not mistaken, hints at no less than the collapse of Western civilization!x
Well, to start that off, I think we would first have to discuss what is meant by cultural collapse (it's not the "sky falling"), and ask whether you believe it is now impossible from any cause.
Anyway, you said you welcomed this discussion because it forced you to clarify your reasons for supporting SSM. Likewise, I need to clarify my reasons in opposing it, and welcome the opportunity to explain my feelings on the matter better.
I hope you coninue to come here; I think it will be interesting discussing this issue with you.
I never said I had anything against polygamy. Was I supposed to have a problem with how others conduct their private affairs?
ReplyDeletePolygamy was good enough for the Bible and is still practiced in the Muslims world, so why not?
Carlo, if it is still okay with you I will continue to assist in clarifying your viewpoint rather than disputing it extenstively.
ReplyDelete* * *
In your view, marriage is an agreement of personal beliefs.
The purpose of society's marriage law is to enforce personal agreements on a case-by-case basis.
Society, by way of the law, does not recognize marriage by essentials, because each marriage agreement is a relationship contract derived from personal beliefs.
The law does not define marriage. There are many variations of personal agreements of this kind. There is no common core meaning.
Is this your view of how things are or is it how you think things ought to be?
John Howard,
ReplyDeleteI think there are certain misconceptions going on here. When I stated, "I'm not demanding it. As far as I know, no one is," I was merely trying to convey how the use of "same-sex conception" technologies is not something that significantly concerns me or most other people, gay or straight. I wasn't intending to concede that no such right exists. As I indicated before, this is a complicated bioethical issue that I haven't given much thought yet, so I'm unwilling to give any definitive answer, although as I also said when you first posed the question, I don't quite see the specific ethical problem in allowing such technologies to be used. As a general principle, I usually prefer that government expand rather than restrict freedoms, unless there's a compelling purpose for doing otherwise (but I will concede that a compelling purpose might very well exist in this case, given its rather radical nature).
Nevertheless, I do think that you've touched on a peculiar issue that forms at the intersection of marriage rights, technology, and the inherently unprocreative nature of same-sex relationships. But the way I see it, the right to conception is not in any way a right associated with marriage. Men and women are free to conceive outside of marriage; indeed, in vitro fertilization permits women to conceive without ever meeting the father in question, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies occur all the time. There isn't any legal sanction for such conceptions. So even if same-sex couples were somehow restricted in this right, I don't see it as relevant to the legal or social status of their marriages.
Furthermore, I don't actually see conception (in this context) as a right, but instead think of it as an ability. Opposite-sex couples have the ABILITY to conceive, same-sex couples don't. You had phrased it in the following way:
"If I am allowed to reproduce with a woman, but I am prohibited from attempting to with a man, then those relationships do not have equal rights."The way I see it, men ARE allowed to attempt to reproduce with another man, in the sense that they are allowed to have sex! It's not anybody's fault that such attempts are doomed to fail. They're also permitted to use the same reproductive technologies (IVF, surrogate pregnancy), that opposite-sex couples are. What you're really talking about isn't the right to conceive, but the right to utilize certain, currently non-existent, technologies.
Allow me to put it this way: let's say that this "same-sex conception" technology, which consists of (hypothetically) creating an egg cell derived from sperm cells, or sperm cells derived from egg cells, could also be applied to other cell types. For example, a married, infertile man, wishing to conceive, requested to utilize the exact same technology to have some of his adult stem cells transformed into healthy sperm. (I can foresee the technical issues that might arise from ploidy level, but this is a hypothetical, so bear with me). His intention was to then use this artificially derived sperm in order to conceive a child with his wife. Should he be permitted to do so? If yes, then should the same-sex couples not also be allowed to utilize the same technologies? Whether or not the technology should be permitted, the same restrictions should apply equally to men and women, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. This is the sort of equality that I seek.
A few more points for John Howard:
ReplyDelete"Different relationships with different rights should have different names, calling them the same name implies that both-sex marriages have the same rights as same-sex ones, which means you are saying that no marriage has a right to conceive together with their own genes."I clearly stated that same-sex and opposite-sex marriages should resemble each other in every POSSIBLE way, and this includes their associated rights, benefits, and obligations. In so far as certain things, such as conception or the use of modern technologies, are possible for only one type of union and not the other, then I have no problem with such legal distinctions being made. After all, there is no point in demanding what isn't possible.
"Yes, there are hardline opponents of Civil Unions, just as there are people who insist on same-sex marriage, and those people will think the compromise gives up too much. But they are the fringe extremists."I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. The mainstream position within the marriage equality movement is PRECISELY that civil unions are not sufficient. This was the whole point of last year's events in California, during which the state Supreme Court ruled that domestic partnership law, while conferring all of the legal rights and benefits of marriage conferred by the state, were not sufficient; and which Prop 8 later invalidated. Same-sex couples in California are still permitted those domestic partnerships, but I know of no marriage equality advocate that considers this an acceptable state of affairs.
"And don't forget, you could use the word 'marriage' if you wanted to, it just wouldn't actually be a legal marriage, because it wouldn't have conception rights. No one would arrest you for saying you were getting married, and this is my husband, etc. But the document in the file cabinet at city Hall would say "Civil Union", and you wouldn't have the sine non qua essential right that married couples have always had and always should have."Precisely. Other than the "because it wouldn't have conception rights" part, this paragraph is exactly correct. And this is why we consider a civil union or domestic partnership law a "separate-but-equal" arrangement that isn't equal at all, that fails to recognize the same human dignity and equality, and that is vastly insufficient.
Mr Hosty: >>> I think the meaning of marriage is up to the two individuals it involves, just like it has always been.x
ReplyDeleteRK: >> By that token, though, why can't it be up to the three or more individuals.
Mr Hosty: > I never said I had anything against polygamy
Just to set the record straight, polygamy is multiple marriages. It is not an instance of more than two people in the same marriage :)
While I doubt that has much effect on Mr Hosty's point, it is important to clear up.
Just to set the record straight, polygamy is multiple marriages. It is not an instance of more than two people in the same marriage :)True. As it has usually been practiced historically. Which is why when confronted with giving a principled objection to it, many SSM supporters say "because not all the parties consent to it".
ReplyDeleteWhich begs the question of what principled objection to it remains (for those who want to redefine marriage) when all parties DO consent to each member of the polygamous union.
Of course, I oppose polygamy, but I oppose redefining marriage, period.
They should be unequal, Carlo! It is bad to give the rights of a married man and woman to same-sex couples, whether it is called marriage or not. The reason the CA court said DP's weren't Constitutional was because they gave the same rights, the decision was limited to whether it was OK to give the same bundle of rights different names. They explicitly said they were not ruling on whether same-sex couples must be given the same rights, and they only ruled that as long as they are, then they should have the same name. By the same logic, then, if they were given different rights, then they should have different names.
ReplyDeleteBy refusing to accept a ban, you are demanding a right to attempt to conceive with someone of the same sex, and demanding that it be allowed to be developed and made safe, and demanding that hetero married couples be considered to have the same right to conceive that same-sex couples have, you are completely demolishing everyone's right to conceive naturally, with their own genes with their spouse. And hurting same-sex couples in the process, who have no interest in claiming a right to conceive children together, but really need federal recognition and all the other protections you have been demanding. It's really tragic that you would throw it all away now and cling to coneption rights instead. So much progress could be made, but you'd rather sabotage it for them and keep them waiting, and you'd rather sabotage everyone's conception rights and usher in unfettered coercive market-driven eugenics and demand labs do incredibly risky experiments to create real human babies, just because you refuse to accept that people should have different rights with someone of the other sex than someone of their own sex. Aren't I persuasive enough? Do I need to make a slide show of actual couples you are keeping from attaining equal federal recognition to get through to you? You are in a position to make real progress.
I think Carlos is on to something: no matter what any of us might think is core to marriage, all married couples are viewed as married, no matter how they regard those core principles.
ReplyDeleteJohn Howard, you really need to stop making such an effort to put words in other people's mouths, so to speak. I saw nothing in Carlo's comments that suggests that he would "rather sabotage everyone's conception rights and usher in unfettered coercive market-driven eugenics and demand labs do incredibly risky experiments to create real human babies, just because you refuse to accept that people should have different rights with someone of the other sex than someone of their own sex."
ReplyDeleteHi Peter, I'd agree.
ReplyDeleteThe core exists even if people who enter the social institution are indifferent or hostile toward that core.
People should know what they are walking into rather than wandering into it indifferently. If they don't recognize its value, then, they are less likely to find the entrance. If they enter anyway, they are less likely to benefit from the core meaning.
Hence the question about the core meaning of marriage. What is it? And based on that, what are the sustainable boundaries?
The Law regards the social institution. Does it not have definitive legal requirements? Does it not have boundaries based on its core meaning?
My previous comment expressed agreement with Peter Hoh's one-sentence remark @ 5/20/2009 09:59:00 PM.
ReplyDelete* * *
Peter regarding your response to John Howard, keep in mind that he is describing the outcome he foresees, with reason, and thus the implications of the remarks made by Carlo.
If you dispute the plausibility of his view of what is down the road (a short distance, mind), and if you dispute the implications he described, okay, fair game. Carlo might do so, as well, of course. But I don't think it is fair to say that John Howard was putting words into Carlo's mouth.
John Howard, feel free to provide links to your website. There are some good reference materials there that might help with the discussion you are trying to have. But also keep in mind the comment I made to RK earlier. Thanks.
By the way, if the meaning of SSM can be so readily described, why would the meaning of marriage seem so evasive?
ReplyDeleteChairm, I disagree about John Howard's rhetorical approach. He doesn't just share his view of what is down the road. He personalizes it.
ReplyDeleteInstead of asking clarifying questions, John plays clairvoyant, insisting that Carlo is "demanding" this and that and "demolishing everyone's right to conceive naturally" when Carlo has said nothing of the sort.
One has to have fallen through John Howard's looking glass to accept this as so incontrovertible as to be an acceptable line of reasoning.
Let me try an analogy: if an abortion opponent were to take the position that abortion was murder, would it be acceptable for a pro-choice advocate to declare that the abortion opponent was insisting that women who procure abortions be tried for murder? The pro-choice advocate may have played this out before -- arguing that if abortion is murder, then those who have an abortion should be treated just as we treat those who hire a hit man -- but it is not fair to use this prior argument (combined with his world view) to insist that someone else believes something that he has not expressed.
Peter, that may not be a close analogy but I take it you mean to object to accusatory rhetoric, right?
ReplyDeleteJohn Howard, if you are drawing implications, please keep Peter's remarks in mind as you express those implications, okay?
Now, let's return to Carlo's viewpoint and the queries being made.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteNo problem, take your time. I myself have spent too much time commenting here the last few days, to the point where I have gotten too little done at work. I've since configured my web browser to ban me from this site except during my lunch hour, so everyone can expect less frequent comments from me from now on (and apologies in advance if I'm unable to keep up with everyone).
Also, I admit I was being a bit facetious when I referred to the impending collapse of Western civilization. We can set aside that issue for now. I'd prefer to wait until you've made your complete argument(s) before I respond.
Carlo and RK, before embarking on disagreement between multiple viewpoints, let's continue the clarification of Carlo's viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteCarlo please see: 5/20/2009 06:32:00 PM.
Cheers,
Chairm
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your defense. I agree entirely that John Howard had gone beyond merely following my arguments to some rather illogical conclusions, but that from the tone and substance of his comment, that he was literally accusing me of consigning same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike to a horrible, dystopic fate of sexless genetic engineering. Furthermore, I'm under the impression that he has some predetermined idea as to where his line of argumentation should lead, and he's simply ignoring or twisting everything I say so that it goes down that path. And truth be told, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to remain civil when addressing his arguments, because I'm torn between the impulse to express either 1) irritation, at his failure to respond to my arguments in good faith, 2) mockery, at the sheer illogic of his arguments, or 3) a sound and thorough fisking of his rambling essay. So for the sake of a more constructive discussion, I'm ignoring all of his comments from now on, unless he addresses my arguments directly, or moves on to a different topic. I hope everyone understands why I've chosen to do this.
Chairm,
ReplyDelete"In your view, marriage is an agreement of personal beliefs."
Correct. In the context of law, marriage is a contract, which two people willingly agree to enter. Their reasons for doing so would be due largely to their personal beliefs. Integral to contract law is the idea of mutual, informed consent. If it turns out that after the wedding, two people do not agree on their personal beliefs regarding marriage, then the marriage is not likely to survive, and indeed, that marriage may be eligible for annulment (and therefore be declared not to have existed at all). However, because reality is a messy thing, married people have disagreements on their personal beliefs all the time.
"The purpose of society's marriage law is to enforce personal agreements on a case-by-case basis."
Within a particular country, state, or city, marriage law is the same for pretty much everyone, so the purpose of the law is usually to enforce the same sort of contract for everyone who chooses to enter it, regardless of what personal agreements those people might have had. However, in an increasingly individualistic culture and the consequent use of prenuptial agreements, there is now room for those couples to make their own modifications to the standard contract defined by the state. In this sense, then yes the purpose of marriage law is to enforce the different sorts of marital contracts that people freely enter into.
"Society, by way of the law, does not recognize marriage by essentials, because each marriage agreement is a relationship contract derived from personal beliefs."
The LAW does not recognize marriage by its essentials, by and large. Most people would say that love is essential in a marriage, but the law does not recognize this, because the purpose of law is to apply as broadly as possible to everyone, without intruding into their personal thoughts, motivations, practices and beliefs. Society, however, has much more to say about the essentials of marriage. If a particular marriage were rancorous, loveless, sexless, childless, then society would likely look upon such a marriage with disapproval, and some might even say that its not a "real" marriage.
"The law does not define marriage. There are many variations of personal agreements of this kind. There is no common core meaning."
The law defines the specific, enforceable rights and obligations of the parties entering the contract, in so far as government has any say in the matter. Because different individuals, cultures, and religions have different ideas on what those rights and obligations are, then yes there is much variation in how those contracts are defined. It's certainly possible, in theory, to identify some core features that everyone, or a large majority, agree to be central to the definition of marriage. For example, if you performed a survey asking Americans what they believe marriage to be all about, I suspect over 90% would answer along the lines of love, commitment, and creating a family. However, there is no OBJECTIVE core meaning in the sense that these cultural notions can change, and have changed in the past. Furthermore, even universally held cultural notions of what the "core" of marriage is need not be enshrined in law. Following the example above, even though love, commitment, and family creation are seen by society as central to the definition of marriage, there is no legal requirement that married couples love each other, be committed, or create families.
"Is this your view of how things are or is it how you think things ought to be?"
It's my view of how things are, but I think it works pretty well, overall.
Thanks, Carlo, now, as a way of managing the multiple topics that have come up in your description of your viewpoint, I'll put up a blogpost that will be my attempt to summarize the first point. There, you can correct, confirm, clarify if need be. But I think we have a mutual understanding on this much and hope my summation will hit the target.
ReplyDelete* * *
I'll go to the next bit, shortly, but first I want to emphasize that the goal here is to reach that mutual understanding of that often gets sunk by a rush to disagree.
Sometimes, on contentious issues, people will throw-up their arms and say, "let's agree to disagree". And that's alright, I think, except if it is done prematurely -- before understanding the actual disagreement.
Prematurely "agreeing to disagree" is too often really "disagreeing to agree". I do think there are areas of difficult disagreement, of course, but I also think, based on lots of years on this issue, that there are large areas of agreement. It may surprise some of us to discover that is the case.
Obviously, I support the man-woman basis of marriage in the law. But if there is merit in the pro-SSM viewpoint, I do not want to miss it. Hence the need to go through this step-by-step -- I will follow your footsteps so please, Carlo, resist the temptation to get too far ahead on this path of yours to your conclusions.
Okay, so it looks like this will be a good time to pause and to again express appreication for the efforts being made.
* * *
The next point in your viewpoint, Carlo, may be easier on both of us and our readers. Heh.
Thanks, again,
Cahirm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApologies for the typos.
ReplyDeleteSlight handicap of the digits. Should take more care before hitting Post.
Chairm,
ReplyDelete"Hence the question about the core meaning of marriage. What is it? And based on that, what are the sustainable boundaries?
The Law regards the social institution. Does it not have definitive legal requirements? Does it not have boundaries based on its core meaning?"
As I've argued earlier, I don't believe that marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, has an objective, universal, no-force-in-heaven-or-earth-can-change-it core meaning. It is a social institution, it can change or vary just as culture and societies can change or vary. (It is also just a word; and language and the meaning of words changes as well). But in a specific place and time, people can for the most part agree on what marriage is or isn't, should or shouldn't be. And because marriage evolved from something deep and intrinsic within human nature, then it wouldn't be surprising to find some features that are indeed historically universal. But that doesn't mean that any such historically universal features should automatically override any ethical or social developments that have occurred in the modern age.
However, its boundaries as written in the law may not necessarily have anything to do with its core meaning as defined by the people. I've given the example of how society at large views marriage to be about love, commitment, and family creation. But the boundaries can be due to other pragmatic, legal, or cultural concerns. We don't allow marriage with children, animals, or the mentally incompetent, because we don't consider these as being capable of giving informed consent. We don't allow marriages between closely related people, because of a powerful cultural taboo against incest (even though a brother/sister couple might truly love, commit, and plan to raise a family together!). And we don't allow polygamy because, well, actually I'm not entirely certain why we don't allow polygamy. You could correctly argue that these boundaries, such as informed consent and lack of consanguinity, are also then part of its core meaning. But I fear that that path just leads to a useless argument of semantics.
Let me put it this way. Let's say that in a hundred years, for whatever reason, Western society has become so sexually liberal that polyamorous or incestuous relationships became perfectly and acceptable. The institution of marriage might then evolve to include such relationships, and its legal and cultural definition would change accordingly.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteOh, all right, I just saaw your 5/21/2009 11:11:00 AM comment. Sure, no problem. Thanks as well.
Carlo, you asked about "a married, infertile man, wishing to conceive, requested to utilize the exact same technology to have some of his adult stem cells transformed into healthy sperm." First of all, it wouldn't be the "exact same technology" because it wouldn't require any genetic engineering to change his gamete into the other kind of gamete. The idea would be to recreate his gametes - indistinguishable, identical, unmodified gametes just like he would have if he were healthy. There would be no changing it around so the genetic imprinting was opposite sexed. It would be private medicine to restore his healthy functioning. And even if medical ethics boards weren't sure about the health risks of using stem cell derived gametes, and so put a hold on attempting it, he would still retain the basic human right to attempt to conceive with his wife using other methods, because society, in granting marriage, approves of he and his wife conceiving children together.
ReplyDeleteSociety should not approve of people attempting to conceive with someone of the same sex, by any method. If we thought that sodomy could result in creating embryos somehow, then yes, we should outlaw sodomy, but because we know that it won't result in conception (we can't conceive of a baby resulting from sodomy), it has nothing to do with our analysis, or our job here, if you will.
So we can't just say "OK, two men have a right to conceive just like a man and a woman do, they just can't", because that would be like Pennsylvania saying that women have a right to an abortion, they just have to get their husband's permission, wait 48 hours, etc etc. Justice O'Connor ruled that states can't put "substantial obstacles" in the path of rights. If something is a right, then it has to be allowed. You can't fiddle around with cute solutions that say something is a right but then say that it can be prohibited, you can't diddle around and put off hard decisions that you don't want to have to make - "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." Either we say that same-sex couples should be allowed to attempt to create offspring together, or we say that they shouldn't.
We can make that decision independently of marriage, but if we do that, we are stripping conception rights form marriage. Never before in the history of Mankind has a marriage been allowed that was prohibited from ever creating offspring together. If we strip conception rights from marriage, as Peter wants us to, then we are more than threatening everyone's conception rights, we are annihilating them, they won't exist anymore. And if we allow same-sex conception, as Carlo wants us to, then we are also annihilating everyone's right to use their own unmodified genes to reproduce, since we'd would be saying that using modified genes is equal to using unmodified genes.
And regarding Peter's objection about me getting "personal" - my point is that Carlo and Peter are in a special situation, engaged with me on this board, that they are able to change the course of the debate. They can agree to take equal conception rights off the table and leave them for a man and a woman. They can decide that its more important to get all the protections they say they need for all the thousands of couples that need them, and its more important to preserve human dignity and equality and put Congress in charge of rogue doctors and labs that would do unethical experiments in cloning and genetic engineering and same sex conception, or they can refuse to do so and steer the world directly into all those problems just because they don't want to admit they had been wrong about same-sex equality and same-sex marriage. I understand it is hard to admit you've been wrong, but when the reward for doing so is achieving protections for same-sex couples ASAP and preserving human dignity and equality, it has got to be worth it.
John Howard,
ReplyDeleteThank you for addressing my arguments. Perhaps more on that later, but one specific portion from your comment jumped out at me:
"If we strip conception rights from marriage, as Peter wants us to, then we are more than threatening everyone's conception rights, we are annihilating them, they won't exist anymore. And if we allow same-sex conception, as Carlo wants us to, then we are also annihilating everyone's right to use their own unmodified genes to reproduce, since we'd would be saying that using modified genes is equal to using unmodified genes."
Both statements are illogical. Even if we strip conception rights from same-sex couples, conception rights would still remain for opposite-sex couples. This is similar to how while voting rights were withheld from women and black folks, this didn't endanger the voting rights of white men in the slightest. It isn't equal or just, but it's inaccurate to say that taking away a right from one group necessitates taking it away from all groups. (If this were the case, which group would be left to take away the rights?)
Similarly, if we do allow same-sex conception, it doesn't logically follow that we are annihilating everyone's right to conceive naturally. Straight couples would still be perfectly free to do so (and indeed, I can't imagine how anyone any government could desire or succeed in taking away the right to have sex!), even if natural conception were held to be in the same regard as same-sex conception.
Unfortunately, I am experiencing tech difficulties. The pause will be longer than expected. Hang in there, please.
ReplyDeleteCarlo, it would strip conception rights from marriage if same-sex marriages were prohibited from conceiving together, by any method. All marriages should continue to be allowed to conceive, we should not change marriage for the first time in human history by allowing a marriage to be prohibited from conceiving. If that is done, then married couples do not have conception rights at all. They might still be able to get away with doing it, but they would be subject at any time to the state treating them as if they were a same-sex couple and prohibiting them from conceiving together, since we will have said that they have equal rights to a same-sex couple. In this time of genetic screening and donor gametes and calls for mandatory screening and mandatory genetic enhancement, we must be vigilant about preserving the right of all marriages to conceive together. Not all male-female couples, all marriages: siblings, children, people married to other people, etc, do not have conception rights either.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, if we say that using modified gametes is equal to using unmodified gametes, then we can't claim that there is anything special about the right to use unmodified gametes. If a same-sex couple has equal rights, and they have to use modified gametes, then any couple could be forced to use modified gametes. As an analogy, consider the right to free speech. If we start to say that dogs have a right to free speech, but dogs have to use government ghost writers to write their speech because they can't write themselves, then we will have said that use of government ghost writers is equivalent to using your own words and writing your own speech. Then the government could say that all people have to use government ghost writers and can't use their own speech anymore, and people couldn't complain, because they still have the equal right to free speech that dogs have, and that has already been declared equal, good enough for dogs, so good enough for humans too. We can't allow the use of modified gametes, because it is a direct threat to the right to use unmodified gametes. More philosphically, consider that a right is something that IS right, it is not merely allowed, but is considered the right and just and honorable thing to do. If we allow modified gametes, and they become the safe and improved way to create healthy, athletic, intelligent and talented children, then soon it won't be considered right to use our own substandard random genes, and once it isn't considered right, it won't be a right for long. And at that point, lawyers will look around and try to find if there is indeed a right to use our own genes instead of modified genes, and they will not be able to find it anywhere. We will have declared it unspecial, unworthy of preserving, back when we allowed same-sex conception.
Adults have the right to vote, but children and the mentally incompetent do not. Does this give government the power to take away voting rights from competent adults?
ReplyDeleteEveryone has the equal right to free speech. But some people are born mute, and can only exercise that right by writing and sign language. Does this give government the power to prohibit everyone else from speaking?
You say that siblings, children, and people married to other people have no conception rights. But there is no punishment for incest in some states like New Jersey (and incest laws apply regardless of whether pregnancy results); the law doesn't prohibit an underage girl from conceiving a child with an underage boy; and most importantly, there is no law prohibiting a married adult woman from conceiving a child with someone other than her husband. Should pregnancies in all of these situations be punishable by law?
You say that if something isn't considered right, it won't be a right for long. People have a free speech right to express racist neo-Nazi propaganda. Doing so is considered very, very wrong. Is this right fated to be taken away?
In my opinion, yes, those pregnancies should be punishable by law. Even if, by the considered decision of our legislatures or police departments, they are not punished, there is certainly no "right" to adultery or fornication or incest. This just shows how much in dire need we are to remind people that conception rights inhere in marriage. Couples that are prohibited from marrying are supposed to be prohibited from conceiving together, that is the whole point. That's why cases like Zablocki v Redhail said that states cannot prohibit couples from marrying if they allow them to have sex and conceive children together, and that's why Goodrich and other courts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage: they aren't prohibited from conceiving together, so they should have access to the protections of marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding your point about the government not being able to take voting rights away from competent adults, that gets at precisely the problem: we don't want the government deciding who is competent or qualified to reproduce. Everyone should have the right to marry and reproduce, and the government should be withholding conception rights from everyone on the condition that they are screened and approved as safe enough to have children. That's what would happen if we said that my right to conceive with a woman was equal to your right to conceive with another man. You already insist that it should only be allowed if it is safe (though you fail to accept the logical conclusion that it should be banned right now, seeing as you agree that it is unsafe right now) - so apparently you think that government should be able to treat every marriage that way. That is apparently Peter Hoh's conclusion also, that NO marriage should have a guaranteed right to attempt to conceive children together, it should be at the discretion of government regulators to decide if it is safe for every marriage. I say no - everyone should have the right to procreate with someone of the other sex, and no one should have the right to procreate with someone of the same sex. That way government isn't in the business of deciding which marriages are "competent" to conceive together and which can be prohibited. It becomes a simple matter of adding "same sex" to the list of relationships to which all people may not procreate with, or marry, like siblings, people already married, children, etc. Same for everybody, and all supportable and fair and for the common good.
should have proof-read: "Everyone should have the right to marry and reproduce, and the government should *NOT* be withholding conception rights from everyone on the condition that they are screened and approved as safe enough to have children."
ReplyDeleteYou're saying that you don't want government deciding who is qualified to reproduce, that everyone should have the right to marry and reproduce, that government shouldn't withhold conception rights on the basis of safety. And on this basis, you would not only ban same-sex marriage and reproduction, but adultery, fornication, and incest as well? How do you not fall over from cognitive dissonance?
ReplyDeleteBecause those are public relationships, not individuals. Not all relationships are ethical to reproduce with. And we should all have equal rights to reproduce with ethical relationships.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. So according to you, reproductive rights depend on how ethical a relationship is; people have no right to commit adultery, fornication, or incest; and pregnancies by children, siblings, or people married to other people should be punishable by law. So for married straight couples, conception rights are sacrosanct, because these relationships are sufficiently ethical. But what if you're a single woman approaching her 50s who desperately wants to have children, and you decide to conceive a child with a sperm bank donor via IVF? Or if you're a woman who suffers the grievous misfortune of rape, and conceives a child as a result? What about a young couple in love, who forget to use birth control and accidentally get pregnant? The lonely widow who's seduced by her best friend's husband? A fifteen year-old girl who experiments sexually with her male classmate? A twelve-year-old girl who's sexually abused by her uncle, and gets pregnant with what is technically her nephew? A beautiful young lady who has a sexual affair with a Catholic priest? A defiantly incestuous brother and sister in their 20s? Bristol Palin? You truly believe that any or all of these women, by becoming pregnant, should be punishable by law? Which ones? Who gets to decide which of these relationships are ethical enough?
ReplyDeleteOops, that's cousin, not nephew.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarlo, you may have missed this earlier comment in another thread. John Howard seems to believe that Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court will be asked whether or not same-sex couples should have equal conception rights.Let's make it a drinking game. Every time a senator asks the nominee about conception rights, I'll drink a beer.
ReplyDeleteI expect to remain sober.
I said "we should insist" the nominee be asked.
ReplyDeleteAnd Carlo, many of those situations you describe are crimes, and none of them seem like good situations. Why are you defending an uncle who rapes his niece? I have never seen anyone resort to defending incest and rape just to keep from admitting that some relationships are unethical to conceive together.
We are supposed to be trying to draw out your views about the meaning of marriage, but I didn't expect you would be revealing such strange views about incest and rape. Maybe you need to step back and rethink what the meaning of marriage is, so that you don't have to defend rapists to be consistent.
Wow. Defend incest and rape? When did I do that? I recall no such thing. Perhaps you could point out to me where I made such a morally contemptible argument, so that I might apologize and take back those words.
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to try again then to make whatever point you were trying to make above, so it doesn't seem like you are saying an Uncle raping his 13 year-old niece shouldn't be punished.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that there are some serious misunderstandings going on here. Allow me to go back and clarify.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, the main point that I was trying to make was this: In your attempt to tie together the right to conceive and the right to marry, you've effectively asserted that women have no right to conceive outside of the bonds of traditional marriage. Allow me to quote again your following statements:
"In my opinion, yes, those pregnancies should be punishable by law."
"Couples that are prohibited from marrying are supposed to be prohibited from conceiving together, that is the whole point."
"Not all relationships are ethical to reproduce with. And we should all have equal rights to reproduce with ethical relationships."
My understanding here is that we're not talking merely about the right to certain forms of sexual behavior, whether incest, fornication, rape, or between married adults; but the right of a woman to conceive or bear a child from such behavior. It's an important difference. Naturally there is no right to sexual activities such as child molestation or rape, which I condemn in the strongest terms; and I'm willing to concede that there is no right to have incestuous sex as well (although my opinion on that is actually more nuanced). But from your statements, you seem to go beyond this, and either imply or state outright that, in certain situations, specifically those outside marriage between a man and woman, or at least those outside of "ethical relationships," that CONCEPTION ITSELF can be illegal.
Now this is a serious claim to make. When we say that there is a right to some activity, then government is not permitted to restrict, prevent, or punish that activity, except under very strict conditions. When you stated that pregnancies (not sexual behavior, but pregnancies!) among couples that cannot be married should be punishable by law, then you were effectively stating that outside of marriage, those women in fact had no right to conceive, no right to have that fundamental control over their own bodies, that by simply becoming pregnant, those women could be subjected to fines or imprisonment (or forced abortion?), perhaps even when that conception had not been their choice. Hence the list of scenarios in my previous comment; I was trying to confront you with the absurd and frankly somewhat misogynist conclusions that draw logically from your statements. I was actually exceedingly clear in referring to pregnancy and not sex, when I said:
"You truly believe that any or all of these women, by becoming pregnant, should be punishable by law? Which ones?"
And indeed the question still stands: may a woman be punished for conceiving a child outside of marriage, or with a man that law prevents her from marrying? Is it then marriage that grants a woman the right to conceive?
My answer to this is, of course, no. A woman is not granted the right to conceive a child when a wedding ring is placed on her finger; that right is inherent in her from the very moment that she is capable of conception. The right to govern this most intimate function of her body is fundamental to her dignity as a human being, and no government should be permitted to take this away.
But from what I can see, you seem desperate to prove that the right to marry and the right to conceive are deeply intertwined, because the logic of your entire argument hinges on this claim. If women have a right to conceive outside of marriage, then the right to conceive is not, specifically, a marital right. And likewise, if the technology for same-sex conception were available and legal today, then two men or two women can avail of it and conceive a child, regardless of whether or not they were married. So even if, for whatever reason, all of government and society agreed that this technology should be banned, this ban would apply to same-sex couples regardless of marital status, and thus would not be grounds for denying them the right to marriage.
No, my entire argument is that same-sex couples should not have equal rights. It's that all people should have a right to marry and procreate with the person of their choice, with their unmodified genes, except for relationships where there is a supportable basis to prohibit that kind of relationship from procreating together. It's that no one should have a right to create people any way except by combining their unmodified genes with someone else's, which limits us to reproducing with the other sex. And my argument is that it is a good thing that there are two sexes and we are all only one sex, and we have to cooperate with someone of the other sex to reproduce.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue all that if there was no marriage debate going on, but the fact that there is a marriage debate going on, and there are same-sex couples that society would benefit from supporting and strengthening their commitment, AND there is serious research and demand for attempting unethical human manufacture for same-sex couples, presents an opportunity to resolve all these issues at once.
My argument does not require making any changes to how we deal with unmarried conception, all it does is assert that WITHIN MARRIAGE, there should always be a right to conceive with your spouse using your own genes, and no marriage should be prohibited from conceiving with its own genes. No couples that are prohibited from marrying should be allowed to marry, because that would effect all marriages, it would say that it is OK to prohibit a marriage from procreating with its own genes. That would be a very bad thing to do, even if we also banned all the genetic engineering and same-sex conception stuff, because it would still imply that a marriage could be forced to use donor gametes from healthier people.
If you want a hint about how the Supreme Court views the rights within marriage today, you can find one in Lawrence, where Kennedy says that marriage, at minimum, is about the right to have sexual intercourse. That doesn't mean we have to prohibit all fornication again, but it certainly means that within marriage, the couple has a right to conceive children (because we can't sterilize people either, so if we give them the right to have sex, that's giving them the right to conceive children, likewise, prohibiting sex prohibits procreation).
And I think it will be a good thing to strengthen the connection in people's minds that the right to procreate is found in marriage, and that there really is not a right to procreate outside of marriage. People should be legally committed to each other, and make a official consent before witnesses and a solemn authority representing the state that they accept the duties and obligations of marriage, before they have sex (because that always might lead to a birth of their child) or intentionally conceiving a child (I thus oppose sperm and egg donation also, but that will be a tougher campaign and its less urgent than stopping GE and protecting marriage's conception rights).
I think you meant to say:
ReplyDelete"No couples that are prohibited from CONCEIVING should be allowed to marry, because that would effect all marriages, it would say that it is OK to prohibit a marriage from procreating with its own genes".
I feel that you're still failing to address an important contradiction in your arguments. You say that "there really is not a right to procreate outside of marriage." But you also say "That doesn't mean we have to prohibit all fornication again". How do you reconcile these two statements?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, to say that there is no right to something is to say that government can be permitted to restrict, prevent or punish it, except under strict conditions. It's one thing to disapprove of unwed motherhood, or of unmarried couples raising children together, and claim that such arrangements are destructive to society. It's another thing entirely to say that there is NO RIGHT to such arrangements, and that government is allowed to punish such behavior. Even you may not favor prohibiting fornication, but you've effectively conceded that a law against fornication can be allowed. Is this correct?
Furthermore, even leaving aside the right or lack thereof to modifying one's genes, you've argued that even married couples don't have a right to do with their own eggs and sperm what they see fit. Your opposition to sperm and egg donation is especially telling. By your argument, if a married man is biologically unable to father a child, that couple may be (and in fact, should be!) prohibited from seeking the assistance of sperm donor to produce a child genetically related to at least one person in the marriage. You seem to believe that government may be permitted to interfere in the private, reproductive affairs of married couples, or at least that their right to combine gametes is earned with a marriage license. Now, this is actually a logically coherent argument to make, but I hope you realize how radical and out-of-the-mainstream your position has become? How do you justify government intrusion in such intimate, private affairs?
You seem to be right on all that. I reconcile those statements the way you surmise, that government could make laws against fornication and adultery and they wouldn't be unconstitutional. We don't because we have the Pill and legal abortion and paternity tests and child support laws, and those protect the children better than illegitimacy laws did, which punished the children. Massachusetts still has fornication and adultery laws on the books, we just repealed our illegitimacy laws and stopped policing fornication and adultery, but they are still technically illegal here. Virginia's court recently struck down their law against fornication, citing Lawrence, but that case was a strange case, and besides they're the same court that SCOTUS schooled 42 years ago in Loving v Virginia, so we shouldn't take their rulings too seriously. Even if SCOTUS were to declare unmarried sex a right (unlikely since we know from Lawrence that they do consider sex a right of marriage), it still would not affect my argument, which is about marriage guaranteeing a right to attempt to procreate, not about prohibiting unmarried procreation. Marriage approves of the couple producing children together, using the couple's own genes. It doesn't approve of using other people's genes, or modifying the genes, or putting the baby at risk, but at the same time, privacy protects lots of things the couple might do to procreate.
ReplyDeleteI realize that prohibiting sperm and egg donation is not going to be easy right now, in this selfish cultural climate. But there is a large movement by children of donor gametes to get government to prohibit the practice, or at least anonymous donation (they too are settling for what they can get, though they prefer that the practice be banned and all children be born to married parents.) We don't need to prohibit spem donation as urgently as we need to prohibit genetic engineering because A, it happens anyway, there have always been kids born who did not know their dad, and B, it isn't a radical new step across a line into manufacturing people from modified genes. We need to stop that before it starts happening. And we need to preserve the right of all marriages to use their own genes, to stop the creep towards eugenics with modified or donor genes.
All this time arguing, there are still thousands of couples without federal recognition, or any state recognition, because you are insisting on equal rights and marriage rights. Haven't I showed you enough to convince you that clinging to conception rights and equal rights is not the right priority? Those couples don't need equal rights, they need all the protections and obligations (and society would benefit from them having them), they don't need conception rights that every married man and woman should have.
Thank you. This clarifies things immensely. I now understand the full scope of how extreme and radical your beliefs are, regarding the power of government to intrude into the private sexual affairs of citizens. Personally, I find your views on the matter to be morally outrageous and frighteningly authoritarian, but they are at least logical and internally consistent, and can thus form the basis of a useful discussion.
ReplyDeleteThey are, however, also factually and irrefutably incorrect. Eisenstadt v. Baird was a SCOTUS decision as far back as 1972 that specifically upheld the right of unmarried persons to engage in procreative sex. This right was recognized to exist even for minors under the age of 16 in Carey v. Population Services International. And most unusually, you cite Lawrence v. Texas to argue that marriage grants a right to sex, when its finding was the exact opposite: that the right to have sex could not be restricted even for two gay men, who at the time could not legally be married anywhere in the United States.
(As an aside, I'd appreciate it if from now on, when you cite a court case you provide its full name. I have no idea what Virginia decision you're referring to.)
I do agree, however, that this isn't fully relevant. While I have argued that the rights to sex and procreation are not legally derived from the right to marriage, I do agree that, in recognizing a couple's marriage, both society and law recognize and approve of the right possessed by that couple to engage in sex and procreation. Now if I understand correctly, you argue that, firstly, to then permit same-sex couples to marry and engage in what we might call "artificial" procreation would significantly endanger the right to "natural" procreation within opposite-sex marriages. You further argue that, secondly, to permit same-sex couples to marry but NOT procreate would similarly grant government the power to regulate and restrict the procreative rights within opposite-sex marriages. Even setting aside your additional belief that same-sex couples have no inherent right to procreation in the first place (which is a personal opinion not yet directly addressed by any existing case law), my position is that your reasoning is flawed on both counts.
However, this discussion has proceeded at a lengthy and rapid pace, and having resolved and come to a clear disagreement on the previous matter, I think that, unless you have further comments or questions, this is a good time for a short break. My next substantive comment will, hopefully, address the flaws in at least one of your two claims above. In the meantime, I invite you to contemplate the significance and implications of the three SCOTUS decisions I cited above, and furthermore, the decisions Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws intended to prevent the mixing of races, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized the right to marital privacy. And finally, I leave you for now with a quotation from the Eisenstadt decision:
"It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship.... If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free of unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
To Chairm and others:
ReplyDeleteI thought many of you would be interested to read this:
The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp
It parallels Chairms arguments regarding the "core" of marriage in some ways. I would be fascinated to hear what others think of it.
Very interesting link Carlos.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think perhaps this article usefully focuses on the holostic aspect of kinship rather than the singular act of "procreation" as being "core" to Marriage. Obviously kinship and procreation are intrincically related, but marriage is about kinship, not procreation per se.
I also think many well-meaning gays and lesbians have bought into the idea that SSM will do no harm to anyone else, much less "destroy the family" as we know it. Yet when you start looking at the core meanings of things, destruction of the family (kinship) is EXACTLY what's at stake here.
Actually, no offense but I thought it was interesting because I thought the flaws in the article were self-evident. I'm reluctant to get into a discussion of it in this thread, which has already been consumed by a long discussion with John Howard (perhaps a new thread could be started?), but suffice it to say that one of the reasons we want same-sex marriage is so that we can be more fully integrated into the kinship system. Even on a purely intuitive level, I would have thought same-sex marriage would strengthen, not destroy, families.
ReplyDeleteCarlo, I decided to post my interpretation of Eisenstadt over at my blog, since it got pretty long and Chairm wants to keep this thread about your beliefs. Also, I find myself typing that in almost every in depth argument I get into, so now I can just link to it instead and move on. Remember, its irrelevant to the question of allowing same-sex conception anyhow.
ReplyDeleteBut the kinship system is not based on a legal fiction Carlos -- the "legal fiction" itself (the marriage contract) is based on kinship.
ReplyDeleteKinship is a real thing that happens when men and women mate together, thereby joining their families together via their offspring. Marriage celebrates and reinforces this bond -- but it is not the bond itself.
If you really want to "be more fully integrated into the kinship system" I can't give you any better advice than for you to marry the mother of your children, til death do you part. Shacking up with another man and calling it "marriage" is a poor imitation of the real thing.
---
PS: Please keep in mind that Mr. Howard's arguments are very narrowly focused, and do not accurately represent the broad spectrum of debate you normally get from other Opiners here. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Heh, sorry I came to this thread late, not realizing there were 99 comments above -- so my PS re John Howard was totally unneccesary. Apologies.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I will reiterate this comment again:
"Shacking up with another man and calling it "marriage" is a poor imitation of the real thing."
This is true because of something Carlos says in the original post: "It is, at its core, about equality."
Separate IS equal, after all, apparently.
"Gaining that status, however, requires that it meaningfully resemble its counterpart in every possible way."
Every possible way, except one -- the one that is arguably the MOST important, the most traditionally and historically universal, the most core to the institution itself. Carlos would toss out the male+female requirement, while pretending that "sexual orientation" ever had anything to do with marriage at all.
Sorry friend. If you want to have a "second-class marriage", then by all means "marry" your boyfriend.
But it's a poor imitation, because we all know that separate is NOT equal, after all.
Carlo, I would like to discuss some things more with you as well (including Sam Schulman's points, as well as some of your first statements here), but rather than go off on a possible tangent I will wait until you and John Howard and Marty have all gotten your points across.
ReplyDeleteR.K.,
ReplyDeleteNo problem, I'm in no hurry here. You can wait until John Howard and I are finished, anyway, if you want. I appreciate yours and Chairm's civility towards me, but given Marty's somewhat insulting tone, his condescending dismissal of me and any relationships I might wish to pursue, and his failure to actually address the points I went at great length to express, I'm not sure I have any interest in getting into any sort of debate with him.
Sorry, no insulting tone intended. As for "condescending dismissal" of your relationship, well, I'm not the one insisting that separate is equal. If you want a second-class marriage, that's fine with me. It's your choice.
ReplyDeleteMarty, does Newt have a second-class marriage? How about a couple of porn stars who have no intention of leaving the business? In the eyes of the law, their marriages are no different than yours or mine.
ReplyDeleteYes, as you so eloquently point out Peter, "first class" marriages are very easy to come by -- the requirements are extremely slim indeed, and are in no way hindered by anyone's "sexual orientation" -- even gays and lesbians regularly manage them.
ReplyDeleteBut I suppose if your gender bias is so strong that it is impossible for you to love someone of the opposite sex, then it probably wouldn't be a good idea. If second-class is the best you can do, then so be it. I wish you well anyway.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, a suggestion: why not put up a new post/thread on the Schulman article? I think it's worth dissecting, and discussion would proceed more smoothly if that were discussed separately from my own arguments above. I'd especially like to hear Chairm's thoughts, since it has parallels with his own ideas, the article even uses the word "core." (Where is Chairm, anyway?)
John Howard,
ReplyDeleteStill there? I'm ready to continue the discussion of you are. Given the new threads that have popped up, and my agreement to discuss other matters with Chairm and R.K., I'm eager to wrap this up as quickly as possible. So I'm just going to cut to the chase:
Your reasoning is based on false premises. It is fallacious to suggest that a ban on artificial conception will create a legal space for a ban on natural conception. Even if one were to admit that this is a discriminatory policy, under the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review, the Constitution permits discrimination regarding a fundamental right under specific conditions, namely that the discrimination advance a compelling governmental interest, and that it be narrowly tailored and utilize the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. If government found a compelling reason to ban artificial conception, for reasons of biomedical danger, needlessness, expense, or whatever else, this reason would not apply to natural conception in traditional marriages. Thus, government would not be empowered to infringe on that fundamental right, which as we've both acknowledged has been amply recognized in case law.
For similar reasons, permitting both same-sex marriage and conception would not endanger the natural methods by which opposite-sex couples conceive. If the fundamental right to marital privacy includes the right to conception, then not only is the union of egg and sperm protected, but so is the manner in which that union is achieved as well. Artificial conception or no, government would need a powerfully compelling reason to restrict conception rights within traditional marriage, and I cannot even begin to imagine any such reason that would pass even the most cursory application of rational basis review, much less strict scrutiny.
And as a practical rather than legal matter, both claims are absurd on their face. Sex and reproduction are rights and activities that are enjoyed and valued by the vast majority of American adults, including members of Congress and the rest of government, to the point of almost total unanimity. An attempt to introduce legislation placing such radical restrictions on the population would not only lack any rational basis, but result in political suicide, indeed it might be grounds for impeachment on the basis of sheer insanity. The subjugation of the white race under the heels of their black overlords would be a more probable outcome than what you suggest.
The compromise that you propose does not address the change that you fear, because the two have no legal or practical connection. Eugenics was widely discredited decades ago, human reproductive cloning is not yet possible, and human genetic engineering is barely in the beginnings of infancy. The nation has debated these issues and will continue to debate them until a consensus is reached (because this is what happens in a democracy), whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. The best your compromise would accomplish is a ban on one specific application of a subset of these technologies, and at the terrible cost of a permanently unequal society.
John Howard,
ReplyDeleteFinally, your rather unusual arguments compel me to make some additional remarks, and please understand that I say the following without any intent to offend. You believe that the right to conception within traditional marriage is so fragile yet so sacrosanct that, in the absence of any evidence anywhere that there is a desire to do this right harm, you would throw away without the slightest compassion not only the right of straight couples to conceive outside of marriage, and not only the right of same-sex couples to find aid in conceiving themselves, but the right of same-sex couples to marry at all. You apparently believe that the marital and procreative activities of a tiny minority, comprising about 3% of the population, are somehow so powerful, so overwhelming, that the vast majority of the country might fall sway to their irresistible force. You may as well argue that "They'll take our women!" while you're at it, for all the good it will do in establishing that imaginary connection between the wildly unrealistic dystopia that you wish to prevent, and the dignity and equality that you wish to deny.
Look, to be fair I don't believe you're truly bigoted against gays and lesbians; you haven't demonstrated the slightest hint of hatred or malice towards us as human individuals, and you've gone further than most in acknowledging our need for legal protection. But I beg you: look deep inside yourself and ask why your fear of genetic experimentation and engineering is so extreme that you would connect it to the largely unrelated concerns of a minority, and then deny those concerns just so your fears won't be realized. Ask yourself why your initial premise, one not shared even by the most strident opponents of same-sex marriage on this blog, is the explicit declaration (made twice in this thread) not only that same-sex conception should be prevented due to pragmatic concerns, but that as a matter of principle, same-sex couples simply "should not have equal rights." And then you might begin to understand why, when you offer your compromise to those of us who seek marriage equality, none of us accept it, none of us take it seriously, none of us even accept the premises under which it is offered.
It is fallacious to suggest that a ban on artificial conception will create a legal space for a ban on natural conception.
ReplyDeleteI don't suggest that, Carlo. In fact, its the opposite: We need to ban artificial conception in order to protect natural conception. Banning artificial doesn't threaten natural conception, declaring that people have the same right to natural conception that they do to artificial conception is what threatens it.
If government found a compelling reason to ban artificial conception, for reasons of biomedical danger, needlessness, expense, or whatever else, this reason would not apply to natural conception in traditional marriages.
"Biomedical danger" could someday describe heterosexual couples using their own "defective" genes, as could needlessness, expense, etc. You are awfully confident that the court will defend a right to use unmodified genes and procreate with your spouse if we don't protect it. The more likely result is that they will declare that if a same-sex couple does not have the right to attempt to have children together because the state says so, and same-sex couples have the same marriage rights as a man and a woman, then a man and a woman do not have the right either. You can't say both couples have an equal right to do "natural conception" together and are equally prohibited from doing artificial conception, because the real world result of that is a ban on all possible ways to have children that applies only to same sex couples, it makes same-sex rights unequal to opposite sex rights. If with Jane, you are allowed to attempt to have a child, but with Bill, a law prohibits you two from trying to have a child, because it "artificial" or "not natural" (or how would you word it?), then you can't say you have equal rights with each relationship. At least, you can't say they have equal rights without slapping in the face every same-sex couple that is being prohibited by such a restriction from availing themselves of promising and apparently safe and wanted techniques to have a baby together, just like a man and a woman do.
Thus, government would not be empowered to infringe on that fundamental right, which as we've both acknowledged has been amply recognized in case law.
Government is every bit "empowered" to infringe on that right: China does it quite effectively. And our government wouldn't have to resort to China's drastic measures of forced abortion to infringe on natural conception rights, they can infringe by mandating education or funding counseling sessions intended to educate the couple into choosing better genes rather than risk using their own, they could mandate contraception to the genetically unfit, or encourage practices known to result in reduced fertility, or block federal IVF funds for unscreened unmodified conceptions. I don't have your confidence that the court would stop a state from doing that. We need to make it explicit that all people have a right to marry and all marriages have a right to conceive using their own genes. We can't make it murky by saying that same-sex couples have the equal right to conceive that a man and a woman do.
For similar reasons, permitting both same-sex marriage and conception would not endanger the natural methods by which opposite-sex couples conceive.
ReplyDeletePermitting same-sex conception would endanger using unmodified gametes because it would open the door for using modified gametes for enhancement and improvement purposes, which is also a goal of lots of people. Propaganda and marketing and the desire to do the right thing would certainly endanger the natural method even without actually prohibiting it. Even if conception remained a right of marriage because we allowed same-sex marriage, it wouldn't mean "natural conception" because if it is equated to a same-sex marriage's right, then it doesn't require using unmodified gametes to be fulfilled, modified gametes also fulfill the right. Sorry, I feel like I've typed this a hundred times in a row.
If the fundamental right to marital privacy includes the right to conception, then not only is the union of egg and sperm protected, but so is the manner in which that union is achieved as well.
This is certainly true in practice, and I agree in principle as well.
Artificial conception or no, government would need a powerfully compelling reason to restrict conception rights within traditional marriage, and I cannot even begin to imagine any such reason that would pass even the most cursory application of rational basis review, much less strict scrutiny.
You don't have to imagine reasons, there are real people advocating for mandatory screening, and people insisting that government has an obligation to enhance intelligence and wipe out breast cancer and systic fibrosis and even obesity. I can easily imagine public outrage at reckless individuals who don't screen and enhance their children, and easily imagine it resulting in a law or "things we can agree on" in order to "reduce the number of unscreened children".
An attempt to introduce legislation placing such radical restrictions on the population would not only lack any rational basis, but result in political suicide, indeed it might be grounds for impeachment on the basis of sheer insanity.
ReplyDeleteWait, the legislation I am proposing we introduce is not a radical restriction, it only restricts stuff that has never done before. The legislation doesn't affect sperm donors, surrogacy, extra-marital conception, pre-marital sex, or anything that anyone has ever done before.
The compromise that you propose does not address the change that you fear, because the two have no legal or practical connection.
What are you talking about? Maybe you haven't read the text of the compromise. It address precisely the things I fear: it prohibits all methods of creating people other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman, which is the only ethical way to create a person. It also explicitly preserves the right of every marriage to conceive using their own genes, which is under threat despite your assurances that it isn't. Your refusal to agree to this compromise is evidence of that. And, it addresses the ongoing injustice of same-sex couples being denied equal protections in all other areas. Those are all things that need to be done, I don't get why you oppose doing them. Take them one at a time and explain why you think they should not be done.
Eugenics was widely discredited decades ago, human reproductive cloning is not yet possible, and human genetic engineering is barely in the beginnings of infancy. The nation has debated these issues and will continue to debate them until a consensus is reached (because this is what happens in a democracy), whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized.
Eugenics obviously is not discredited, because people still want to do genetic engineering and mandatory screening. We aren't debating the issues nearly enough, we need to debate them before they are forced on us, before too much money is wasted, before too many same-sex couples die without getting any federal benefits. Why not do Civil Unions until we decide if we should allow same-sex conception, and then move to marriage if we do, and stay at CU's if we don't?
The best your compromise would accomplish is a ban on one specific application of a subset of these technologies, and at the terrible cost of a permanently unequal society
No, It'd be a blanket ban, like Missouri's. And there would be enormous benefits for society if it permanently rejected Transhumanism and Postgenderism, and affirmed sex and each sex's dependence on the other in order to reproduce. It would mark a huge shift toward sustainability and responsibility and life and away from technological expert worship and its self-hatred and angst and dispair.
John Howard,
ReplyDeleteI will try to respond to all of this tomorrow.
To Marty, a man who beats up his wife and kids is in a first-rate marriage. Ultimately, gay marriage will put an end to this kind male-chauvanism. It's the opponents of gay marriage who suffer from gender bias.
ReplyDelete"I don't suggest that, Carlo. In fact, its the opposite: We need to ban artificial conception in order to protect natural conception."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I wasn't clear. I meant "a ban on artificial conception within same-sex marriages will create a legal space for a ban on natural conception within traditional marriages." This is what you meant, correct?
""Biomedical danger" could someday describe heterosexual couples using their own "defective" genes, as could needlessness, expense, etc."
Human beings have willingly procreated within marriage since nearly the beginning of their existence. I don't think a judge could be reasonably convinced that it is dangerous, needless, or expensive, especially since the likelihood is that they have married and procreated themselves.
"You are awfully confident that the court will defend a right to use unmodified genes and procreate with your spouse if we don't protect it. The more likely result is that they will declare that if a same-sex couple does not have the right to attempt to have children together because the state says so, and same-sex couples have the same marriage rights as a man and a woman, then a man and a woman do not have the right either."
Yes, I am extremely confident of it. I do not agree that your scenario is more likely. I honestly do not know how I can convince you of my certainty, or you the same. I will say this: I am simply unable to believe that the courts would do something so insanely radical (and unenforceable!) as to declare procreation unconstitutional. It goes against every precedent, indeed it goes against the court's very purpose.
"You can't say both couples have an equal right to do "natural conception" together and are equally prohibited from doing artificial conception, because the real world result of that is a ban on all possible ways to have children that applies only to same sex couples, it makes same-sex rights unequal to opposite sex rights."
It would depend on the specific details in the technology and the ban, but generally speaking, yes I now agree that my earlier argument on this point was sophistic.
"If with Jane, you are allowed to attempt to have a child, but with Bill, a law prohibits you two from trying to have a child, because it "artificial" or "not natural" (or how would you word it?), then you can't say you have equal rights with each relationship."
Yes. If there were a truly compelling, constitutionally valid reason as to why same-sex marriages should not be permitted to procreate using modern technology, then same-sex and opposite-sex marriages would indeed not have fully equal rights. And that's ok! I have no problem with this!
"At least, you can't say they have equal rights without slapping in the face every same-sex couple that is being prohibited by such a restriction from availing themselves of promising and apparently safe and wanted techniques to have a baby together, just like a man and a woman do."
And this begs the question: if it's safe, then why prohibit it? The prohibition would have to be constitutionally valid, otherwise there should be no prohibition in the first place.
"Government is every bit "empowered" to infringe on that right: China does it quite effectively."
ReplyDeleteI was debating under the strict assumption that we're considering only the U.S., or at least a constitutional democracy. If we were having this discussion regarding China's marriage policies, that would be another matter entirely.
"And our government wouldn't have to resort to China's drastic measures of forced abortion to infringe on natural conception rights, they can infringe by mandating education or funding counseling sessions intended to educate the couple into choosing better genes rather than risk using their own, they could mandate contraception to the genetically unfit, or encourage practices known to result in reduced fertility, or block federal IVF funds for unscreened unmodified conceptions."
All of these activities, if taken too far, will be stopped either by the Constitution or by the people themselves, through voting. The wonderful thing about democracy is that it makes it difficult for the government to enact policies contrary to the people's will. But do not worry, there is no conspiracy in government to take away a married couple's right to conceive. No one will attempt any of this, at least not to the extreme that you fear.
"We need to make it explicit that all people have a right to marry and all marriages have a right to conceive using their own genes."
I realize that you don't mean it, but this sentence is actually extremely insulting, because your clear implication is that same-sex couples do not count among "all people" and "all marriages." I'm not actually offended, but I feel I should point out that you need to pick your words more carefully.
"We can't make it murky by saying that same-sex couples have the equal right to conceive that a man and a woman do."
Any "murkiness" regarding rights will be clarified by the courts, that's why we have them. While it's wise to maintain some skepticism regarding all branches of government, at some point you're simply going to have to trust them, unless they give you explicit reason not to.
Riiiight Arturo. Cause we all know that gay men NEVER hit their partners, and lesbians NEVER beat up their lovers. Ever. Not in a million years.
ReplyDelete"Permitting same-sex conception would endanger using unmodified gametes because it would open the door for using modified gametes for enhancement and improvement purposes, which is also a goal of lots of people."
ReplyDeleteModifying gametes for same-sex conception and for improvement are different things. There is no reason why we cannot ban one and not the other.
"Propaganda and marketing and the desire to do the right thing would certainly endanger the natural method even without actually prohibiting it."
If not prohibited, then it's left for the people to decide. So it won't be a problem, people's rights won't be curtailed. Some might follow the marketing and propaganda, others will feel the natural method is best. Smoking is similarly permitted, with restrictions, even though it's bad for you. It's not medically ideal, but at least people retain the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. I don't like smoking but I wouldn't support an outright ban.
"Even if conception remained a right of marriage because we allowed same-sex marriage, it wouldn't mean "natural conception" because if it is equated to a same-sex marriage's right, then it doesn't require using unmodified gametes to be fulfilled, modified gametes also fulfill the right."
Constitutionally protected rights encompass ALL methods by which they can be exercised (that don't infringe on others' rights). Free speech doesn't just mean what is spoken out loud, it also includes what is written, typed, painted, danced, sculpted, composed, etc. The existence of mute people who cannot speak does not permit government to ban everyone else from speaking, on the basis that sign language "fulfills" the right to free speech. Government isn't allowed to select just one method by which a right can be fulfilled, and then ban the rest. The same applies to the right of conception within marriage.
"This is certainly true in practice, and I agree in principle as well."
I don't think you understood my meaning, which was that a constitutionally protected right to marital privacy, as recognized in Griswold, means that government does not have the authority to prohibit natural conception within marriage.
"You don't have to imagine reasons, there are real people advocating for mandatory screening, and people insisting that government has an obligation to enhance intelligence and wipe out breast cancer and systic fibrosis and even obesity. I can easily imagine public outrage at reckless individuals who don't screen and enhance their children, and easily imagine it resulting in a law or "things we can agree on" in order to "reduce the number of unscreened children"."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you have to be more specific regarding what policies you fear or wish to prevent. Genetic screening, enhancing children, wiping out genetic diseases, banning conception with unmodified gametes, and creating male eggs/female sperm are five extremely different things, and there are different ethical, legal, political, constitutional, and scientific issues with each of them. I thought we were only discussing the last two. Your lack of clarity is a barrier to an effective discussion between us.
Secondly, just because people are advocating something, or are outraged at something, doesn't make it a compelling governmental interest that can override constitutionally protected rights. And if it IS in fact such a compelling interest, then your recourse is to amend the constitution, not to prevent same-sex marriage.
Thirdly, none of the people advocating these things have any significant political power that I'm aware of. Well, except perhaps the genetic screening part, but that's simply so genetic diseases like congenital hypothyroidism or phenylketonuria can be diagnosed and treated early, preventing mental retardation. Seems pretty good to me.
Fourthly, if your argument is with transhumanists, go argue with them! Why do you have to drag same-sex couples into your argument? It's trivially easy to design policies that prevent transhumanist goals without restricting marriage rights or equality.
"Riiiight Arturo. Cause..."
ReplyDeleteThe ones who do are not in first class marriages.
When it was more commonly believed that same-sex marriage was an "absurdity" (as Jose likes to call it), it was more common practice for a man to beat his wife and neglect his kids. It's all connected.
It is no longer believed that a battered wife is in a first-class marriage. Sorry.
"Wait, the legislation I am proposing we introduce is not a radical restriction, it only restricts stuff that has never done before. The legislation doesn't affect sperm donors, surrogacy, extra-marital conception, pre-marital sex, or anything that anyone has ever done before."
ReplyDeleteYou're not understanding what I'm saying. I was referring here to the restrictions on conception with unmodified gametes within traditional marriage, which you're so afraid will happen if we allow same-sex marriage. I'm arguing that restricting that right is politically impossible.
"It address precisely the things I fear: it prohibits all methods of creating people other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman, which is the only ethical way to create a person."
You do not get to unilaterally decide what are the ethical ways to create a person. Your wording implies a degree of moral absolutism that prevents any reasonable discussion or compromise. Also, your compromise won't prevent human genetic engineering. But now that I think of it, you're right that it will effectively stop eugenics and human reproductive cloning, even if those phrases aren't in the compromise.
"It also explicitly preserves the right of every marriage to conceive using their own genes, which is under threat despite your assurances that it isn't. Your refusal to agree to this compromise is evidence of that."
You're conflating two different threats. Permitting same-sex marriages that are legally or technologically unable to conceive with their own genes might technically be a "threat" to the right of ALL marriages to so conceive, in the sense that its practical effect will be that some marriages won't be able to conceive any more. But this doesn't mean there is actually any existential threat to conception rights within marriage. In any case, the resolution is obvious: permit ALL marriages, opposite- and same-sex alike, to conceive with their own genes, but ban the rest of the things you fear (genetic engineering, cloning, eugenics, screening, whatever else). If you're going to insist yet again that same-sex conception in and of itself is unethical and should be prevented, you'll have to give a convincing reason why; and remember that slippery slope arguments won't apply this time.
"And, it addresses the ongoing injustice of same-sex couples being denied equal protections in all other areas."
ReplyDeleteBut it won't address the injustice of our denial to MARRIAGE, which is what the whole same-sex marriage controversy is all about! I suggest you read up on the recent events in California, if you haven't yet.
"Those are all things that need to be done, I don't get why you oppose doing them."
Firstly, because your compromise would have marriage equality advocates give up the single thing we want most: marriage equality. While we're mostly unconcerned with whether or not that includes same-sex conception rights, there's no way in hell we're going to give up the word marriage. Secondly, because I'm not at all convinced that a safe method to same-sex conception (in and of itself, and excluding any slippery slope effects it might cause) would be in any way ethically wrong or should be prevented. I may get married someday, and might want to conceive a child with my husband. That's not a possibility I'd readily deny today without good cause. Thirdly, because even though I'm no fan of human reproductive cloning or genetic engineering, I refuse to support a federal ban on these without at least an extensive national debate on the topics; furthermore I'm reluctant to dictate what other people can or can't do with their own genes or biological tissue, even when I disapprove of it. Fourthly, because I don't believe your compromise is the best middle ground between two sides. You're asking us to give up the designation of marriage; what are YOU giving up? Fifthly, because I resent your attempt to leverage our concerns for marriage equality into a means for preventing eugenics and whatever else; I believe those issues can be dealt with separately.
"Eugenics obviously is not discredited, because people still want to do genetic engineering and mandatory screening."
ReplyDeleteYou're utilizing a broader, more modern meaning of the word "eugenics" than the one that was thoroughly discredited by the 1930's (and is today still widely disfavored within the scientific community and society at large). Reading a bit more on the topic, I do see now that a more modern meaning of the word, vis-a-vis screening and genetic engineering, has gained slightly more favor, but still very unpopular (if only because of the association with Hitler). In any case, there are different degrees and forms of eugenics (coercive vs. non-coercive, for example), and this discussion would be better served if you clarified which you meant (although I'm guessing you mean all of them).
"We aren't debating the issues nearly enough, we need to debate them before they are forced on us,"
It's nearly impossible in a democracy to force an unwanted policy on everyone, and there are means of overturning such policies. More to the point, if you believe it hasn't been debated enough, then shouldn't we debate it BEFORE we enact the bans you propose? But kudos to you for trying to bring attention to an issue you believe in. I'm always in favor of more debate.
"before too much money is wasted, before too many same-sex couples die without getting any federal benefits."
Er, I appreciate your concern, but for the most part we're not actually dying from lack of federal benefits. Although extending health benefits to same-sex spouses would be nice.
"Why not do Civil Unions until we decide if we should allow same-sex conception, and then move to marriage if we do, and stay at CU's if we d on't?"
This is a far more reasonable stance to take, and shows a willingness to REAL compromise that can be the basis of a useful debate. I propose a different compromise: allow same-sex marriage on a federal level, permit research on same-sex conception within proper bioethical guidelines, but ban its implementation until it can be proven to be safe. (Actually I have doubts it could ever be safe, but I generally dislike categorical bans on scientific research).
No, It'd be a blanket ban, like Missouri's. And there would be enormous benefits for society if it permanently rejected Transhumanism and Postgenderism, and affirmed sex and each sex's dependence on the other in order to reproduce. It would mark a huge shift toward sustainability and responsibility and life and away from technological expert worship and its self-hatred and angst and dispair.Perhaps you're right, I'm inclined to be persuaded that transhumanism and postgenderism need to be avoided. But these are not popular movements, and even if they were, the technological advances needed to bring these about are still years, probably decades away. Even same-sex conception, which I don't consider truly transhumanist and only a weak form of postgenderism, isn't possible yet, so it's not really an issue yet that's tied to same-sex marriage. There's still plenty of time for consideration and debate, as new technologies arise, before we have to petition Congress to enact regulations and bans on these technologies. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage is possible now, or within a few years. We can deal with it now, and allow marriage equality on a federal level, and then deal with the other problems as they come.
You're asking us to give up the designation of marriage; what are YOU giving up?
ReplyDeleteFederal recognition of state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage without conception rights". That's a big deal, isn't it? Chairm certainly thinks that's too much to give up. Also, with that federal template dictating how states must define their CU's if they want them to be federally recognized, they will be consistent from state to state, and it will make it much easier for all fifty states to enact strong binding Civil Unions with all the benefits and obligations that are still fundamentally and substantially different from marriage and therefore can be enacted even with their amendments and laws that prohibit marriage in all name CU's.
I think you aren't being fair to the older same-sex couples who really need that federal recognition, and to the thousands of couples that live in states that have protected marriage by ruling out CU's too. Those couples won't die from lack of federal recognition, they will die from old age without federal recognition, leaving the survivor without benefits that they would have if they were opposite sex. I think that is an urgent situation that deserves a fast-tracked compromise to get them what society owes them. They don't care about the designation "marriage", they never in their wildest dreams imagined they'd be called married 20 years ago, but they do want equal protections. But you'd hold them up from getting them, because you don't want to give up same-sex conception rights, even though they could always be changed to marriage if society ever decides to allow same-sex conception.
We should ban all forms of modified genes now, while it is known to be unsafe, and while it has not even been discussed, so that we can have the discussion first, before someone goes ahead and tries it. This will enable us to move forward on equal protections right away. Perhaps that will remain the final, permanent resolution, and I hope it does, because the slope is too slippery to eugenics and unsustainable commercial wasteful exploitation and erosion of natural conception rights. Plus, the stability and finality it will bring to affirm sex and equal conception rights would be the foundation of a much greener and more responsible and caring world, while staying in the status quo of funding experts to design technology to replace humans will just bring more frustration and inequality and injustice.
I was referring here to the restrictions on conception with unmodified gametes within traditional marriage, which you're so afraid will happen if we allow same-sex marriage. I'm arguing that restricting that right is politically impossible.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I am only saying that it becomes threatened, by being equated to the right to use modified gametes. Neither of us can know for sure if our government will ever restrict a married man and woman from using their own genes. I want to explicitly protect a marriage's right to conceive with their own genes just in case. I agree that it ought to be Constitutionally unnecessary and that any sane reading of case law would affirm that all marriages are allowed to conceive with their own genes. But there are calls for mandatory screening of parents, and pressure to do PGD, and all sorts of books about how we should design children...why not protect the right of all marriages to use the couples own unmodified genes explicitly?
My tech problems are almost all fixed so I hope to be blogging again shortly. Thanks for your patience in this comment section.
ReplyDelete"Federal recognition of state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage without conception rights". That's a big deal, isn't it?"
ReplyDeleteYes, that IS a big deal; perhaps my earlier tone was unduly dismissive. If I had the power to get Congress to pass a federal Civil Union bill today, I certainly would. But regarding your comment, and proposed compromise:
1. A federal civil union bill in and of itself, regardless of whatever same-sex conception rights or restrictions are attached, is a compromise; our civil rights battle is for full marriage equality. So even this wouldn't end the SSM controversy. (I think we have a clear agreement on this point).
2. Even without your compromise, I think achieving a federal civil union bill is actually possible before the end of Obama's term of office. Especially if he gets a second term. Obama has made vague noises that are supportive of such a law; it remains to be seen whether he'll deliver.
3. Politically, I doubt that your compromise would actually hasten the passage of any such federal civil union bill. I don't think many opponents of SSM (and/or civil unions) would suddenly relent just because they were assured that the federally recognized couples wouldn't be permitted to use a technology that doesn't even exist yet. It might even slow it down, because many same-sex couples might resent an explicit ban on what they could justifiably perceive as their fundamental right, procreation.
"We should ban all forms of modified genes now, while it is known to be unsafe, and while it has not even been discussed, so that we can have the discussion first, before someone goes ahead and tries it."
You're painting too broad a brush again. "All forms of modified genes" could include future gene therapy techniques that have the potential to treat, possibly even cure, diseases such as cancer or Parkinson's, especially when coupled with technologies like stem cells manipulation. Hell, it would even include genetic manipulation of all sorts of human cell and tissue cultures, which have been common and uncontroversial in much of modern scientific and biomedical research for years. And what I think you're referring to as needing a ban, same-sex conception and the rest, aren't merely unsafe, they aren't even possible yet, and scientists aren't likely to try them without undue concern for bioethical issues (real-life scientists aren't the rogue madmen you might envision them to be). So even if I were to agree that some of the technologies that you fear, and their subsequent applications, might be bad for society, I think the sort of ban that you're proposing is both excessive and premature.
"I agree that it ought to be Constitutionally unnecessary and that any sane reading of case law would affirm that all marriages are allowed to conceive with their own genes."
ReplyDeleteWell there you go. I guess I'm just more confident than you that the Constitution will be upheld in this matter, which is why I don't share your worries.
Let me try to assuage your fears for a moment. Consider the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. It was passed by broad bipartisan majority in Congress (only Ron Paul dissented), had strong popular support among both the scientific community and the nation at large, and was readily signed by then-president Bush. If the country is for the most part unwilling to use genetic information to discriminate with regards to employment, then surely we would be even less willing to discriminate with regards to life, conception, and birth?
"why not protect the right of all marriages to use the couples own unmodified genes explicitly?"
And it's this statement that causes us to run into conflict. For as long as you insist that all marriages be allowed to use their own unmodified genes, and that same-sex couples NOT be allowed to use their own genes (which would only require a modification in their epigenetic imprinting, by the way, and not an actual change in DNA sequences), then you're effectively arguing that same-sex couples shouldn't be permitted to marry. Since SSM is the core purpose of the marriage equality movement, then compromise may well be impossible.
Most people support CU's already. It is the demand for equal rights that is holding up equal protections via CU's. People are rightly suspicious also that CU's will be turned into marriage by courts, as many courts have already done, and rightfully so, since the CU's as written by legislatures gave all the rights of marriage, and therefore withholding the name was merely discriminatory. But withholding conception rights is not unjust discrimination, there is a supportable basis to keep procreation natural and unmodified. So with that distinction that keeps CU's from being marriage in all but name, and with the permanent protections of marriage that the compromise contains, CU's would work and easily be enacted.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that SSP only requires changing the imprinting, but it is still changing (engineering) the gene, and apparently it is more difficult than GE, since there are millions of GE'd animals out there, but so far only Kaguya has managed to survive the re-imrpinting process. So it would open the door to all forms of GM babies, it would be really hard to justify allowing a dangerous and elective and unnecessary form of GE while prohibiting a couple from engineering away a disease in their child in a process that is safer than SSP. If we are going to keep procreation natural, and keep everyone's procreation rights protected, we have to prohibit SSP as well GE to improve the genome. We have to prohibit all forms of GE.
You continue to demand the right to do SSP even though it is impossible and thousands of couples are without basic protections that CU's would provide. I think you finally understand how a ban on SSP requires that same-sex couples cannot be allowed to marry. Of course a compromise is impossible if you continue to demand both SSP and SSM. Duh. The compromise requires you to give something up. It's downright selfish and callous to keep demanding conceptino rights and marriage when so many couples need basic protections that you are keeping them from achieving.
"Most people support CU's already. It is the demand for equal rights that is holding up equal protections via CU's."
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly. Don't you think that, if the LGBT community at large felt that winning basic legal protections was more important than a recognition of our fundamental equality, we would have acquiesced to this compromise years ago, and just stopped advocating for full marriage equality? Do you seriously believe that we, as a community and as a movement, don't realize exactly what's at stake here?
"But withholding conception rights is not unjust discrimination, there is a supportable basis to keep procreation natural and unmodified."
You keep saying this, but other than your slippery slope argument regarding the need to protect unmodified opposite-sex procreation, which I've argued is not slippery at all, I've yet to hear such a supportable basis. You have made practically no effort to explain why a safe method for same-sex procreation, in and of itself (and not whatever other horrors it might lead to) should be banned.
"So with that distinction that keeps CU's from being marriage in all but name, and with the permanent protections of marriage that the compromise contains, CU's would work and easily be enacted."
It wouldn't work, it would never work, because it wouldn't be true equality. You continue to miss the entire point of our movement.
"Yes, I know that SSP only requires changing the imprinting, but it is still changing (engineering) the gene, and apparently it is more difficult than GE, since there are millions of GE'd animals out there, but so far only Kaguya has managed to survive the re-imrpinting process."
The distinction isn't important because of its relative difficulty, but because it's a fundamentally different biomolecular process. Methylation patterns and other aspects of epigenetic imprinting can change naturally all the time, due to various genetic, maternal, and environmental factors; while changes in the sequences of coding regions are the result of much rarer random mutations. On a policy level, it's trivially easy to ban one kind of genetic modification and permit the other, since they utilize very different laboratory techniques; this would easily allow SSP while avoiding any slippery slope to other forms of genetic engineering.
"You continue to demand the right to do SSP even though it is impossible and thousands of couples are without basic protections that CU's would provide."
ReplyDeleteAnd you continue to demand that SSP be banned, even though it is impossible. If you can argue that it should be banned out of principle, then there's no reason why I shouldn't also be allowed to argue that it be permitted out of principle.
" I think you finally understand how a ban on SSP requires that same-sex couples cannot be allowed to marry. Of course a compromise is impossible if you continue to demand both SSP and SSM. Duh. The compromise requires you to give something up."
You don't seem to understand that this is a civil rights battle. In battle there are costs and casualties, and there will always be a temptation to declare a truce, put an end to hostilities, and consolidate any gains that have been won so far. But what you propose isn't just a truce, it's a defeat, it prevents us from getting that one most important thing we've been fighting for all along. We believe our cause is right and just, and worth every soldier's sacrifice, and that victory is destined to be ours. We see no reason to give anything up.
"It's downright selfish and callous to keep demanding conceptino rights and marriage when so many couples need basic protections that you are keeping them from achieving."
These accusations would be easier to take seriously if I weren't the one in this thread advocating for full marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples. And if opponents of SSM weren't the ones blocking any recognition of same-sex relationships, including CUs, regardless of whether or not they were allowed to conceive. And if my position weren't the same as that of the vast majority of the LGBT community, including those couples you claim to be so concerned about. And if we haven't been fighting for civil unions for years anyway, even though it isn't nearly good enough. And if we didn't have Obama's support (pdf) in getting civil unions and federal benefits (or so he claims), without your compromise. And if we didn't believe that we can eventually win full marriage equality, not just for ourselves but for all of the generations that will follow.
Don't you think that, if the LGBT community at large felt that winning basic legal protections was more important than a recognition of our fundamental equality, we would have acquiesced to this compromise years ago, and just stopped advocating for full marriage equality?
ReplyDeleteYou DO acquiesce to Civil Unions every time you can get them, they have never been turned down once. I've never seen an LGBT blogger not celebrate when a state passes a CU bill or a DP bill. They say it's a step on the way to full equality, but they never turn it down. The people that turn it down and stop CU's from being enacted are the majority against same-sex marriage, who see CU's as being stepping stones to SSM liable to be turned into SSM, who do not think that same-sex couples should have all the rights of marriage. Recognition of CU's as marriages hasn't been offered at the federal level, for the same reason. If it was offered, of course you'd take it. It is precisely the demand for "fundamental equality" that is holding back couples from getting equal protections.
But I guess the number of couples that really need equal protections is small enough that its easy for you to ignore them and wage your ideological war on natural conception rights and sex and gender. It's just fun for all the young activists to have a righteous cause, and worrying about the old farts that need protections is just not as much fun. It's the ageism of the gay community in full display.
You have made practically no effort to explain why a safe method for same-sex procreation, in and of itself (and not whatever other horrors it might lead to) should be banned.
All of the arguments against same-sex marriage apply here, of course: children need a mother and father, it would hurt norms and expectations, cause confusion and send bad messages about responsible procreation. Also, it would harm the idea of children as self-caused miracles to be welcomed into the family rather than products that people have a right to create. And the idea that we would only allow it if it was "safe" is not only ridiculous on its face (who would decide, and how?), it also harms - just by making the argument - the notion that children should be welcomed as they are, rather than inspected for defects and quality controlled, and rejected if they aren't perfect.
Also, I point out how much it would cost to make same-sex procreation available and ensure its safety, and point out that there are much more ethical imperatives for those resources, such as health care for existing people.
Also, I point out how demanding the right to make same-sex conceived babies is an insult to all adoptive families, the demand totally rejects the principle that Love Makes a Family and says to kids related to only one of their same-sex parents that their parents don't love them as much as they would if they were both related. Going to great lengths to conceive heterosexually with fertility drugs, ICSI sperm-injection, and IVF also does this, but at least those things are private and so their use doesn't send a public message of convoluted intentional manufacture, nor is there a public demand for them like you are making for same-sex procreation. A same-sex couple procreating together would obviously be an advertisement for better bio-related families through technology.
I know it wouldn't be true equality - my point is that true equality should be sought for individuals, not for same-sex couples. Same-sex couples should not have equal rights, it would be very bad for society, even without going down the slippery slope to being super-duper bad for society, which society would most surely go down if it allowed same-sex couples to procreate together.
ReplyDeleteOn a policy level, it's trivially easy to ban one kind of genetic modification and permit the other, since they utilize very different laboratory techniques;
Yes, but why, on a policy level, would we allow the more dangerous and unnecessary one and ban the safer, more tested one that more people are saying is morally imperative to do? My point is that we need to ban both, in order to preserve conception rights. Lines should be drawn where they are easiest to draw. Allowing changes to the Methylation epigenetic imprinting but not to the sequence is not the easiest place to draw the line.
It will be good to affirm that both sexes are necessary to reproduce, and affirm that all people are only one sex and can only reproduce as one sex, with the other sex. It will also be good to keep labs from entering the embryo manufacture business, and stop them from claiming that the only way for some people to reproduce is by paying for a lab's epigenetic modifications (with taxpayer money, no doubt). Labs are already too involved just in the IVF aspect, we already are in over our heads and trying to restore sanity, you want to increase the Octomom selfish craziness?
And you continue to demand that SSP be banned, even though it is impossible. If you can argue that it should be banned out of principle, then there's no reason why I shouldn't also be allowed to argue that it be permitted out of principle.
ReplyDeleteYou are missing all the good that would come from a ban. First of all would be the equal protections for those same-sex couples you don't care about. But in addition to that, a ban on GM'd babies would affirm everyone's equal worth and dignity, it would usher in an age of grown-up responsibility and usher out the 'technology will fix everything' childishness that Transhumanism causes, and it would redirect billions of research dollars and researchers away from studying how to genetically engineer future human beings and toward caring for existing human beings. It would change the way people view sick people, who are now talked about as "defects" to be "eradicated" with genetic engineering instead of as people who deserve care and compassion.
But what you propose isn't just a truce, it's a defeat, it prevents us from getting that one most important thing we've been fighting for all along.
It's a defeat if you have been fighting for conception rights with the same-sex, yes, just like it would be a defeat for those like Chairm who have been fighting against giving equal protections for same-sex couples. I think both of those positions should be defeated. I can't believe that most same-sex couples are really fighting for conception rights, though. If they are, they need to be defeated, in order to preserve equal conception rights for all people, and the basis of our equality in general.
We believe our cause is right and just
Again, I can't believe that most of you know you are fighting for same-sex procreation technology, and not equal protections.
These accusations would be easier to take seriously if I weren't the one in this thread advocating for full marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples.
You are the one rejecting Civil Unions because they don't have conception rights. I am the one with a plan for equal protections right now, you're rejecting it, you're stopping it from instead of promoting it. Obama is going to need to negotiate, he's not going to want to ruin his presidency and re-election chances by imposing CU's or SSM on the nation, especially as the Transhumanist/same-sex procreation aspect comes to light. Why not help him achieve his promise instead of sabotaging him and all the couples that are relying on him. Just because you don't care about practical benefits doesn't mean you should reject the compromise for those that do.
"You DO acquiesce to Civil Unions every time you can get them, they have never been turned down once. ... The people that turn it down and stop CU's from being enacted are the majority against same-sex marriage, who see CU's as being stepping stones to SSM liable to be turned into SSM, ... If it was offered, of course you'd take it."
ReplyDeleteBut we only acquiesce to CUs as a stepping-stone to marriage equality. If offered a deal to get CUs on the condition that we would never be allowed to marry in the future, we would never take that deal, regardless of whatever conception rights are attached.
"It is precisely the demand for "fundamental equality" that is holding back couples from getting equal protections."
Yes, precisely. And yet we continue to demand equality anyway. Which tells you that equal recognition in the long run is more important to our community than equal protections today. (Actually, I think you oversimplify here a bit; there are many who would deny us any protections or recognition at all, under any circumstances. But I get your basic point).
"It's just fun for all the young activists to have a righteous cause, and worrying about the old farts that need protections is just not as much fun. It's the ageism of the gay community in full display."
Have you ever noticed how so many of those "old farts" advocate for SSM as well?
"All of the arguments against same-sex marriage apply here, of course:"
But I'm in favor of SSM. I don't agree with those arguments!
"children need a mother and father,"
I don't agree that this is necessarily true. Follow the "California Marriage Amendment News in Today's LATimes" thread to see my reasons why.
"it would hurt norms and expectations, cause confusion"
If I worried much about norms and expectations, I wouldn't be advocating for something as radical as SSM, which I don't find all that confusing, by the way.
"and send bad messages about responsible procreation."
I'm all for responsible procreation, but I don't think SSM, or even SSP if done right, would necessarily lead to irresponsible procreation.
"Also, it would harm the idea of children as self-caused miracles to be welcomed into the family rather than products that people have a right to create."
Er, children aren't self-caused miracles; in fact they thrive best when resulting from a carefully premeditated decision between two responsible, competent adults (that are married or otherwise committed to each other, and that enjoy legal benefits and protections).
"And the idea that we would only allow it if it was "safe" is not only ridiculous on its face"
"Safe" is entirely different from "defect-free." Any sort of biomedical technology, birth-related or otherwise, that reliably resulted in horrible disfigurement, disease, or death should not be permitted (unless, of course, they were designed to prevent even worse outcomes; such as disfigurement by amputation to prevent death). I'm not proposing strict manufacturing-style quality control here.
"(who would decide, and how?)"
The parents and their doctor, of course. I realize this is a little off-topic, but Andrew Sullivan has been posting stories of people who have struggled with abortions due to problematic pregnancies the last few days; some are linked here. I realize this is only tangentially related, and I really do NOT want to get into the whole abortion debate, I just wanted to underscore how genuine love and compassion for unborn children can be compatible with due concern regarding their physical abnormalities, indeed this love and compassion can be a reason why some choose to terminate their pregnancies.
"Also, I point out how demanding the right to make same-sex conceived babies is an insult to all adoptive families"
ReplyDeleteSomehow I doubt real adoptive families would care. A new reproductive technology is developed and used, and suddenly adopted children will think their parents don't love them as much? Of all people, adoptive families are the ones that best appreciate how families can come in all shapes and forms. In any case, "it insults some people" is not a reason to ban something; I'm advocating for SSM even though this offends a LOT of people.
"Going to great lengths to conceive heterosexually with fertility drugs, ICSI sperm-injection, and IVF also does this, but at least those things are private and so their use doesn't send a public message of convoluted intentional manufacture, nor is there a public demand for them like you are making for same-sex procreation"
Those existing technologies are no more or less private than same-sex conception would be. And as I've said repeatedly, there is NO significant public demand for SSP, even from me (more on this below).
"Same-sex couples should not have equal rights"
This is the third time you've said these exact words, without qualification. Surely you realize that you have absolutely no hope whatsoever of convincing an advocate for same-sex marriage (of all people!) that this is true, at least as a general principle? Or how absurd (not to mention offensive) such a statement sounds to us? I'm still struggling to understand the moral or psychological paradigm by which you could say such a thing, since you don't seem like a garden-variety religious objector or homophobic bigot. Look, I'm willing to be persuaded that on the single, specific issue of same-sex conception, there might be a good reason why we shouldn't have equal rights. But don't bother trying to convince me that we, as couples, shouldn't have equal rights as a general principle; you'd simply be wasting your breath.
"Yes, but why, on a policy level, would we allow the more dangerous and unnecessary one and ban the safer, more tested one that more people are saying is morally imperative to do?"
Because one might have worse moral and societal consequences than the other? Even I agree that creating genetically enhanced humans is, at the very least, sociologically dangerous and morally problematic. I'm not nearly as convinced that the same could be said of same-sex procreation.
"Lines should be drawn where they are easiest to draw."
No, lines should be drawn where they can best protect rights, and balance the competing rights of different people. Supreme courts attempt to draw such lines for all sorts of complicated issues all the time, it's quite fascinating actually. For example, it would be easiest and simplest to simply ban all religious speech and activity from public schools in order to protect Establishment Clause rights, but this would violate Free Exercise Clause freedoms in turn. There's extensive case law on this single issue alone.
"It will be good to affirm that both sexes are necessary to reproduce, and affirm that all people are only one sex and can only reproduce as one sex, with the other sex."
But if new technology resulted in these statements not being true, then why should we affirm them? And the latter statement could actually be perceived as offensive or discriminatory to transgendered and intersex individuals. Nature doesn't draw gender lines quite so neatly as one might think.
"It will also be good to keep labs from entering the embryo manufacture business"
We can keep labs from doing this without infringing on marriage equality.
"and stop them from claiming that the only way for some people to reproduce is by paying for a lab's epigenetic modifications"
ReplyDeleteBut they would be technically correct, at least in the case of same-sex couples; so why shouldn't they claim this? In any case, there would still be adoption, IVF, sperm donation, surrogate motherhood, etc.; I would rather let each couple/family make up their own minds regarding their reproductive options, with the help of their doctors of course.
In any case, so what? What business is it of yours or mine if a tiny minority of couples decided to pay a lab for assistance in reproducing? Why are you so vehemently against assisted reproduction? What does it matter how an embryo is formed? Their dignity and worth is inherent in them as human beings, and the recognition of that dignity depends on how we as fellow humans view and treat them. If I found out today that my best friend had been grown from a test tube, he would still be my best friend.
"(with taxpayer money, no doubt)"
Why would taxpayer money be used?
"Labs are already too involved just in the IVF aspect, we already are in over our heads and trying to restore sanity, you want to increase the Octomom selfish craziness?"
I don't excuse what Octomom did, she was clearly acting irresponsibly. But well, too bad, life is crazy and complicated, especially in a free and technologically advanced society. It's better that we learn to deal with it, and teach our children values that will help them as well, rather than try to stick our nose in everybody else's business, telling them what they should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
"But in addition to that, a ban on GM'd babies would affirm everyone's equal worth and dignity, it would usher in an age of grown-up responsibility and usher out the 'technology will fix everything' childishness that Transhumanism causes, and it would redirect billions of research dollars and researchers away from studying how to genetically engineer future human beings and toward caring for existing human beings. It would change the way people view sick people, who are now talked about as "defects" to be "eradicated" with genetic engineering instead of as people who deserve care and compassion."
Wow. It would accomplish all that? Really? And all that has held this back is that same-sex couples insist on having babies? I didn't realize we were such moral and sociological trendsetters. You'd think that with all this influence, we would have gotten SSM legalized a long time ago, and popularized anal sex among heterosexual couples while we were at it.
You do realize that a ban will not change anyone's deeply held beliefs, nor would it deprive anyone of their democratic rights to advocate for policies that they desire. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying and/or reproducing will not make Transhumanists, the tiny fringe powerless group that they are, suddenly disappear.
"I can't believe that most same-sex couples are really fighting for conception rights, though."
ReplyDeleteWe're not. We're fighting for the right to be MARRIED. Married married married married married. How many more times do I have to say it?
Look, for what it's worth, I apologize for my irritated and sarcastic tone. The truth is this conversation has led to exactly the sort of irrelevant direction that I had feared from the very beginning, and doesn't really touch on the issues I care most about, so I'm getting exasperated at the circuitous and repetitive route that its taken. The truth is, the right of same-sex couples to conceive is not something particularly important to me, nor do I believe it's particularly important to most advocates of marriage equality. What's important to us is our right to marriage, with all of the legal benefits and protections that that provides. And, as I've explained at length in earlier comments, I don't consider the right to conception as something truly inherent to, exclusive in, or granted by, a legal marriage.
The truth is, I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that same-sex couples should be allowed to have all of the rights of opposite-sex couples except for technologically assisted reproduction. I may have made statements that implied otherwise, but this was because you insisted on equating the right to marry and the right to conceive. Since I'm advocating for the right to marry, then I was forced, for the sake of argument, to defend the latter as well. But my goal all along wasn't to specifically defend the right to SSP, but to refute your logic and your premises; to point out that your fears are not grounded in political reality, and that your strategy for preventing your fears is misguided; and most importantly, to demonstrate that your proposed compromise is not in the best interests of the LGBT community, and does not address our most fundamental concerns. On most of these points, I am still entirely convinced that I am correct.
But like I said, I'm willing to be persuaded that same-sex couples should be banned from conceiving. I'd agree that same-sex conception is a disturbingly radical technology that could transform how humanity organizes itself for reproduction, and it should certainly be approached with caution. And on a more personal level, I doubt that I would really ever want to utilize such technology myself in the future, so a ban would make little difference to me. But I recognize that other same-sex couples might wish to conceive themselves in the future, if it became possible; and I have no wish to restrict those couples' freedoms without good reason. Slippery slope arguments regarding the prevention of OTHER technologies, for OTHER biomedical or sociological goals, do not count as good reasons. A simplistic insistence that same-sex couples shouldn't have equal rights is most decidedly NOT a good reason. And that lame list of arguments you provided earlier were not good reasons either.
If you could provide me with any original, persuasive reason as to why I shouldn't be allowed to safely conceive a child with another man, I'd be genuinely happy to hear it. But if not, I'm afraid this conversation is coming close to its natural end, as we've both been repeating ourselves for days and I'm getting tired. So whatever your response, I'd like to say now that I appreciate the time you've taken to have this debate with me. As with all good debates, it has helped me to sharpen and clarify my opinions on a number of issues, and I have learned a lot from it.
Have you ever noticed how so many of those "old farts" advocate for SSM as well?
ReplyDeleteI've certainly noticed. I went to a marriage equality march last week and as I was headed home an elderly gay couple stopped me and thanked me for being there. They then explained that they had been together for 30 years and were doing all they could for the right to get married in their home state. They said, though, that they were also working so hard so that "young boys" like me could get married. I didn't have the heart to tell them I was straight and about 15 years older than I look. Their point was taken, that not only is marriage particularly important for older couples--homosexual and heterosexual which is just one indication that marriage is not just about reproduction--but that they are also struggling for the next generation to grow up in a world where marriage was a real possibility.
The key leaders of the marriage movement, (Mary Bonauto, Evan Wolfson, etc.) are not so young.
danderhall,
ReplyDeleteYou're straight? Then I join that elderly gay couple in thanking you for being there. This movement cannot hope to succeed without straight allies who don't stand to gain anything; and yet it seems to me that people like you never get much thanks or recognition from within the movement. Although perhaps I'm mistaken.
Funny,
ReplyDeleteI rember one protest story, much like that one.
It has a boy who wrote on a cardboard sign, "Nazi's against gay marriage" and stood right in front of our protest.
An elderly woman came by, and thanked him for his efforts.
I thought that was hilarious so I asked him, "which of us here are Nazis".
He couldn't find any but was sure somewhere was a Nazi with the position he stated.
But beyond that, I'd have to admit I'd be for same-sex couples being called marriage if only one problem...
You have to change the definition of marriage to do so. If you two can find a way to do that without neutering the definition of marriage (throwing the entitlements and rights of children and both people who combine to create that child under the bus for that kind sweet bigoted elderly couple) I'd be for it.
Go on, I'm willing to listen.
But like I said, I'm willing to be persuaded that same-sex couples should be banned from conceiving.
ReplyDeleteIt's unsafe now, we shouldn't let a lab do it now, we should ban it now. I can't see how any further persuasion could be necessary. What argument could you have that it should be allowed right now?
And tell me, do you also believe that a married man and woman could be banned from conceiving, for any reason? I certainly think that no marriages should be banned from conceiving, for any reason. I don't think we should have Class A and Class B marriages based on safety or risk factors, where only class A is allowed to conceive together, because then all marriages might be subject to being labelled "Class B" if they carry bad genes or are deemed unfit in some way. How can we say that male-female marriages have a right to procreate if they are supposedly equal in rights to same-sex marriages? The courts have been clear that we can't have a statutory system that gives the same bundle of rights two names, and its equally true that we can't give different bundles of rights the same name. If we ban same-sex procreation, and if we protect male-female procreation, we are saying that same-sex couples don't have equal rights, and once you accept that, why bother holding out for the name marriage?
Look, you've lost, it's time to accept that the anti-SSM people are right, there is a good reason not to give equal rights to same-sex couples, a good reason we can't have SSM. But with that loss comes a great opportunity to gain equal protections. Sure, some old farts are happy to fight for SSM, they never expected CU's anyhow, and probably are all set up with ad hoc legal contracts. But there are people who need the legal protections that CU's could bring, right now, mainly older lesbians who are much more likely to be poor than two old gay men.
"It's unsafe now, we shouldn't let a lab do it now, we should ban it now."
ReplyDeleteBut this is laughably ridiculous. Every major advance in medial science, every form of experimental surgery, every new drug undergoing clinical trials, is unsafe at the beginning. The entire field of biomedical research ethics is built around developing new methods, new cures, new technologies, while protecting the safety, health, and rights of patients and research subjects. If we followed your reasoning, and just banned any new technique that was unsafe at the beginning, medical science would ground to a halt.
And as I've already said, SSP isn't just unsafe at the moment, it's impossible. Banning it would have no practical effect on any same-sex couples seeking to conceive today, because no lab that currently exists is capable of performing the technique. The only real effect of a ban would be to halt any research into developing a safe technique, which is of course what you really want. What I've yet to hear is why such research should itself be banned, why the procedure itself shouldn't be permitted regardless of how safe it can be made.
"And tell me, do you also believe that a married man and woman could be banned from conceiving, for any reason?"
No, I can think of no reason why any such couple should be banned from conceiving, nor can I think of any plausible scenario (within the US) where any such ban could be enacted or enforced.
"I certainly think that no marriages should be banned from conceiving, for any reason."
I can't think of any plausible reason that would justify banning any marriages from conceiving, either.
"I don't think we should have Class A and Class B marriages based on safety or risk factors, where only class A is allowed to conceive together, because then all marriages might be subject to being labelled "Class B" if they carry bad genes or are deemed unfit in some way."
Ye gods, we've been over this. Even if SSP were banned, there is a vast difference between banning a technique that could be used to allow a couple to conceive, and banning a couple (or a category of couples) from conceiving. To be even clearer, there is a difference between banning a method of conception that carries a significant risk of resulting in sick or deformed children, and banning a couple from conceiving because their very genes carried the risk of deformity or disease susceptibility regardless of the method of conception. It's not just a difference in semantics; the two have different practical consequences. The first ban could conceivably allow a new, safe, legal technique to be developed, while the second ban would be a categorical infringement of the couple's conception rights. The first ban is an indictment on the technique, the second ban is an indictment on the couple's fitness to conceive. The first ban might be morally and legally justifiable, the second ban almost certainly is not.
"How can we say that male-female marriages have a right to procreate if they are supposedly equal in rights to same-sex marriages?"
If for some good reason, which you've yet to offer, there was a ban on same-sex procreation, then the two types of marriage simply wouldn't have equal rights to procreate. The male-female marriage would have the right to procreate, the same-sex marriage wouldn't.
"The courts have been clear that we can't have a statutory system that gives the same bundle of rights two names,"
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
"and its equally true that we can't give different bundles of rights the same name."
And this is where you're wrong again. Of course we can give different bundles of rights the same name! Why not? The legal benefits, rights, and obligations associated with marriage vary from state to state, but we call it marriage in all fifty states. And marriage rights in the U.S. differ from those in other countries. China, for example, has a one-child policy; while countries with declining populations like Russia and Australia actually offer financial bonuses for additional children. But we call them all marriage! What's the problem with that?
"If we ban same-sex procreation, and if we protect male-female procreation, we are saying that same-sex couples don't have equal rights,"
Correct again. IF you could justify banning same-sex procreation, which you haven't.
"and once you accept that, why bother holding out for the name marriage?"
Because, for the bajillionth time, the word "marriage" confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can. In this hypothetical scenario, where SSP absolutely had to be banned for some reason I've yet to hear, the word marriage may not represent 100% equality, but it would still be better than anything else we could get, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions.
"Look, you've lost, it's time to accept that the anti-SSM people are right, there is a good reason not to give equal rights to same-sex couples, a good reason we can't have SSM."
Has this been your goal all along, to come up with some sort of justification for banning SSM? Because you've worked through some fairly contorted reasoning just to reach this conclusion.
"Sure, some old farts are happy to fight for SSM, they never expected CU's anyhow, and probably are all set up with ad hoc legal contracts. But there are people who need the legal protections that CU's could bring, right now, mainly older lesbians who are much more likely to be poor than two old gay men."
And you don't see how this undercuts your argument, and your bargaining power, tremendously? To know that even the elderly couples you wish to protect mostly don't want your bargain? In fact, can you name me even one same-sex couple, of any age, that would sacrifice any future right to state or federal same-sex marriage in order to get the associated legal protections and benefits today? And even if there were a tiny minority of such couples, do you seriously think that as a movement, we would appease them at the cost of denying full equality to untold generations to come? Especially now that the political momentum is shifting in our favor?
Carlo states:
ReplyDeleteBut this is laughably ridiculous. Every major advance in medial science, every form of experimental surgery, every new drug undergoing clinical trials, is unsafe at the beginning.
The same distinction exists here that we discussed above Carlo, and that you keep missing it is the real burried headline here.
Lets consider the two risks, and what we have to gain.
An experimental surgery, an experimental pill, has the capacity to save lives. It takes someone already in danger and gives them a fighting (if not fully understood) chance.
Putting a life back together, or even propping it up, is much different than creating it -- dangerously. One takes a bad situation and tries to make it better.
The latter, like the story of the family above, creates the bad situation in the first place.
Again the distinction is the same as in the logic behind the story "don't feed the bears".
That is no meaningless detail, let alone "laughable".
Banning it would have no practical effect on any same-sex couples seeking to conceive today
If nothing else, a ban on the medical practice of using gametes outside a marriage to create a child would help bring clarity to people who would toss children about like the story above.
While I'm not entirely for John's position, cases like the story above need some kind of regulation to restrict the far to casual disregard for the children's connection to their real parents.
While a law may be too heavy handed, a good understanding that if you can't create the child together then you shouldn't feel that creating it outside the marriage is the "next best thing". It satisfies the will to procreate, but tramples on the children's need to know their parents, and know their parents love each other.
I don't see the adult need as superceding the child's, do you?
The male-female marriage would have the right to procreate, the same-sex marriage wouldn't.
Which is just a way of tip-toeing up to the fact that marriage itself is tied to the act of procreation.
Look at your model of marriage, its a good subset of qualities that people should have in a committed relationship. But it is only a subset. I don't see why taking just a subset of rights recognition is a good thing.
The man-woman criteria, while inflicting no harm on a same-sex relationship, simply affirms our importance on how people concieve and take responsibility for that conception.
Yet the other way around, removing that recognition from marriage simply puts more heterosexual couples, and their potential kids, in a state of precarious state
As you state, "And even if there were a tiny minority of such couples, do you seriously think that as a movement, we would appease them at the cost of denying full equality to untold generations to come?"
You aren't asking for full equality, your dismissal of the children's needs above shows that (especially after initially addressing or acknowledging those needs). Your asking for equality to mean some (the same sex couples) are more equal than others.
Its the harm you wish to do to marriage equality which more fully condemns the rhetoric behind neutering marriage.
Because, for the bajillionth time, the word "marriage" confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can.
ReplyDeleteI'm just pausing and noting...
The status. The recognition. Above it was the stability and care.
Its simply using the word "marriage" like a brand on fashionable clothing. Its taking the name, but completely being oblivious to the power behind it.
Marriage, rooted in the obvious needs of responsibility for procreation, the obvious needs of children to their parentage and heritage, that derives any valor it instills.
Everything else is just verbage.
". . . and once you accept that, why bother holding out for the name marriage?" John Howard
ReplyDelete"Because, for the bajillionth time, the word "marriage" confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can." Carlo
And then On Lawn sees it all. He grasps fully the meaning of Carlo's confession.
"I'm just pausing and noting..." Aha! "The status. The recognition. . . . Its simply using the word 'marriage' like a brand on fashionable clothing. . . . Everything else is just verbage." On Lawn
Now we've known this all along but here we have a direct confession. In my article "The Symbolism of Marriage for Homosexuals" I noted,
"For the homosexual it is a symbol of something they wish more than anything else. They are on a quest for the Holy Grail. It is the ultimate societal recognition and blessing of their desire for homosexual intercourse. That which has throughout time and in almost every society been seen as a loathsome and depraved activity may now be sanctified in holy matrimony. It is not marriage per se that they seek, because once they realize what marriage means they must recognize that it simply cannot occur between people of the same sex. . . .
They usurp the term marriage for the purpose of providing irrevocable societal affirmation of homosexual activity. Marriage for the homosexual couple is the symbol of societal affirmation."
It is the "status and recognition," as Carlos confesses, for which they are struggling so hard.
It doesn't seem to matter to them that this "status" is derived from a great hoax.
ReplyDelete"It is the "status and recognition," as Carlos confesses, for which they are struggling so hard."
ReplyDeleteRight. Status and recognition for our relationships as equal to those of our heterosexual peers. I've been saying this all along, for days, repeatedly; read the many, many comments above where I explain this at length. I don't just "confess" it, I declare it clearly and without apology.
Carlo,
ReplyDeleteYes I am straight. Thanks for your appreciation, but the denial of same-sex couples the right to marry strikes me as such a grave injustice what else could I do? I got married in 2002 before same-sex marriage was allowed anywhere in this country, and I felt somewhat guilty that here I was getting married when some of my friends were unable to do so. On the other hand, I know how important marriage is for a family and I didn't want to deny my family those protections. Instead I believed the best thing was to continue speaking out on how important it was for others to have such protections.
I would note, by the way, that status and recognition is not separate from stability and care. Much of the protection that marriage affords stems from recognition of the marital status.
Danderhall patted himself on the back, then states:
ReplyDeleteInstead I believed the best thing was to continue speaking out on how important it was for others to have such protections.
So, why are you so concerned only about same-sex couples having protections?
I think inside of that musing is a good argument for something like Reciprocal Beneficiaries which can help a number of family situations beyond gays and lesbians. Or was there a reason you only want them to be protected?
Much of the protection that marriage affords stems from recognition of the marital status.
What kind of protection are you saying comes from the status of a label?
I'm not saying there isn't, but I'm interested how you get there without acknowledging what marriage descirbes.
SO, please explain...
Carlo says:
ReplyDeleteStatus and recognition for our relationships as equal to those of our heterosexual peers.
I think that is noble. But stupid. Status and recognition equality doesn't come with a label. We have many people we consider to be incompetent who held the label "President of the USA" or "excellency". Nothing about the label improved their condition, or ultimate respect.
If that is what you are saying, over and over, (and over and over), then your fallacy continues in relying on labels to bring meaning rather than having labels to recognize meaning already there.
Wasn't it you who felt the label and reality "marriage" describing the institution behind family creation was "tautological" instead of illustrative? As much of an admission that the label is something to plunder for resources rather than a real description of a real concept as you've ever made, if you ask me.
The Civil Rights movement understood that labels are tied to a real something. You'll note they did not try to re-define white to mean "black or white" to have status equality. No doubt in their effort to reprogram centuries of legal code, they could have reached for such an obvious hack.
In fact, before the 1950's there was such status-homogeneity described in literature. Popular literature at that. I'm thinking of course of the distopian novel 1984 by George Orwell.
That said, labels and status are pretty vague platforms. To fight for the label and status of human relationships is further outside of the governments reach to enforce. Especially one which says that two men who use women as a source of eggs for their attempt to mimic heterosexuality more closely is of course no different than two people who love and completely support the other person they have children with, in marriage, for the sake of the children.
Besides, as states the 800lb Gorilla in the room:
---
"Same-sex partners want to marginalize the commitment to my children with a definition of marriage as simply an acknowledgement that my wife and I love each other. Inviting government to take an interest in my feelings for my wife opens up a Pandora's box of unprecedented government intrusiveness. The fact that government has had no interest in feelings to date is reflected by the fact that the word "love" is not in current marriage law anywhere. Even when two people are divorcing they cannot use a lack of love as grounds.
"Same-sex couples are left to argue that it is unconstitutional for their unions to be denied the power of procreation. That argument would come with a hefty price as these couples demanded state resources to overcome that inequality. God, I fear, would not submit to a court order on the issue."
---
God or nature that is.
If, as danderhall states, gender is as meaningless to parenting as the color of the shirt you are wearing, then the damage they wish to do to the institution of marriage is evident.
So, why are you so concerned only about same-sex couples having protections?
ReplyDeleteI'm not. I want opposite-sex couples and their families to have these protections as well.
What kind of protection are you saying comes from the status of a label?
When people know that I'm married they know that I have made a promise to protect and care for my wife for the rest of our lives, and likewise she has made a promise to protect and care for me. So, for example, it is understood that if she gets sick I need to care for her. My employer respects that by allowing my insurance to cover her and giving me time off if I need to care for her. My family respects that and does what they can to help me care for her. The hospital respects that by allowing me to make decisions if she is unable to do so. It is understood that if I should die, she should take responsibility for my funeral arrangements. The government would still allow her to draw social security based on my work because it is understood that when I work I'm working for both of us. Being married allows us to make decisions that are in the best interest of our family often making individual sacrifices. Anyway, I don't really have time to explain the importance of marriage to you. I have to go care for my family.
Danderhall writes...
ReplyDeleteI'm not. I want opposite-sex couples and their families to have these protections as well.
Interesting, about an hour ago Carlo said almost the exact same thing, "I'm not being exclusive. I want responsible opposite-sex couples to have these same protections too!"
What I said there applies here also...
Its kind of like the old cowboy addage, "I like all types of music, Country and Western!"
Of course you know that all types of opposite-couples are not eligible for marriage. Related couples, or when one of the individuals is already married, are just two such matters.
Nor do I believe in your advocacy exclusively equalizing gays and lesbians with married couples that you really mean "same-sex" any of the times you say it. That would include, again, many platonic but still just as committed relationships between friends and relatives.
Another discrepancy comes in the use of "couples". There are households which do not form a binary relationship of mutual trust, but instead find that redundancy matters. They may band together in small manageable groups of three or four. One such instance is a young single mother who moves in with an elderly couple to help raise her children.
And so on...
So allow me to spell it out in more detail so you can tell me which relationship deserves the protection and which do not,
1) A young single mother living with elderly benefactors
2) An orphanage (charitable organization)
3) Foster parents
4) A gay or lesbian couple raising a child they had with someone of the opposite sex in another relationship
5) Step parents
6) Two sisters or friends who band together to raise their children
7) Polygamist camps (like Texas, but also not unheard of in Muslim sub-cultures in the US)
8) Polyamorist communal (we had a woman who we talked to here at Opine who felt that there could be communal of multiple people all in the same marriage, all taking care of everyone's kids, and pointed to some kibitzes in Israel which have such sub-communes among them).
From your comment, let me just highlight the qualifications you've given so far, adding male, female and plural tense so as to not tip any biases beforehand...
- I have made a promise to protect and care for [... and he/she/they have ...] made a promise to protect and care for me
- for example, it is understood that if [he/she/they] gets sick I need to care for [he/she/them].
- My employer respects that by allowing my insurance to cover her and giving me time off if I need to care for [he/she/them].
- My family respects that and does what they can to help me care for [he/she/them]
- The hospital respects that by allowing me to make decisions if [he/she/they are] unable to do so
- if I should die, [he/she/they] should take responsibility for my funeral arrangements
- The government would still allow [him/her/them] to draw social security based on my work because it is understood that when I work I'm working for [...] us.
- make decisions that are in the best interest of our family often making individual sacrifices (note, no need to change that one because you used the word "family")
None of those reasons seem to draw any real distinction between any of the above arrangements. Would you agree that by those arguments alone they are all, then, in need of the label "marriage"?
Any reason you would disagree?
Anyway, I don't really have time to explain the importance of marriage to you. I have to go care for my family.
Well I appreciate the time you do give. However, I do know the importance of marriage. What I asked was why you felt the "status of a label" in and of itself brought any protection. I mean if those benefits bring protection, then that is easily enough handled with a program like Reciprocal Beneficiaries which has no problem enveloping all of the situations above.
On Lawn,
ReplyDelete"I think that is noble. But stupid. Status and recognition equality doesn't come with a label. We have many people we consider to be incompetent who held the label "President of the USA" or "excellency". Nothing about the label improved their condition, or ultimate respect.
If that is what you are saying, over and over, (and over and over), then your fallacy continues in relying on labels to bring meaning rather than having labels to recognize meaning already there."
I urge you to actually read my many comments above on this matter before you make statements such as this. If you had, then you would know that I am not committing the fallacy that you accuse me of committing. This is yet another reason why I suspect that you are not making a genuine attempt to argue in good faith. I have little enough time as it is, without having to deal with my words being twisted or taken out of context. If you continue making statements such as this, then I will simply direct my discussion to your more reasonable co-bloggers.
None of those reasons seem to draw any real distinction between any of the above arrangements. Would you agree that by those arguments alone they are all, then, in need of the label "marriage"?
ReplyDeleteActually these reasons do start to draw a distinction. You expand she to [she/he/they]. I certainly see no problem expanding it based on gender. Why should any of my obligations to care for my wife depend on the fact that she's female? Expanding it to they is a different story. This should not be surprising as the law generally doesn't distinguish between male and female, but it distinguishes all of the time between the individual and a group of people.
Let's take one specific example in our marriage case. If I get sick it is understood that my wife is responsible for making my health decisions. At a time when there needs to be clear answer to who is in charge, there is. If my wife were actually a man, would this make a difference? No. If my wife were actually two people, would it make a difference? Yes. What if they disagreed? Whose decision would count? I could set up some legal papers beforehand, but what if I didn't, or those papers couldn't be found, or there is some argument about their validity, or there were two sets of papers found, etc. Marriage provides a clear answer.
So now let's take your cases:
1) A young single mother living with elderly benefactors.
It's a group. Not eligible for marriage.
2) An orphanage (charitable organization)
Group. Not eligible for marriage.
3) Foster parents
The parents could marry each other.
4) A gay or lesbian couple raising a child they had with someone of the opposite sex in another relationship.
The gay or lesbian couple could marry each other.
5) Step parents.
They could marry each other.
6) Two sisters or friends who band together to raise their children.
This is a little more complicated. Marriage is a lifetime commitment to one person. Two friends could marry, but it's not a good idea, as if they are only friends they are likely to look for someone outside the relationship. Two sisters even if they wanted to commit to each other for life, we don't allow it--and I believe rightfully so. For one, they already have a family relationship between other that is recognized. Sisters grow up together all of the time, and if they grow up knowing they could marry that could change how sisters in general relate to each other.
7) Polygamist camps (like Texas, but also not unheard of in Muslim sub-cultures in the US)
You can't have more than one spouse. So, no, they can't marry.
8) Polyamorist communal (we had a woman who we talked to here at Opine who felt that there could be communal of multiple people all in the same marriage, all taking care of everyone's kids, and pointed to some kibitzes in Israel which have such sub-communes among them).
One would still have more than one spouse. Again, problematic.
Carlo says:
ReplyDeleteI urge you to actually read my many comments above on this matter before you make statements such as this. If you had, then you would know that I am not committing the fallacy that you accuse me of committing.
I've shown that you are.
To summarize...
Because, for the bajillionth time, the word "marriage" confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can.
If I were to say that, I would have not used the abstraction of marriage as a word. I would have used the meaning of the word as an institution that encourages equal gender participation, and equal recognition of the rights and entitlements of the human mating practice.
Its the meaning, not the label, that confers status.
I have a response to danderhall which I'm trying to post, and I'm getting this: "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters".
ReplyDeleteI know I've posted longer posts with both italics and links before. Anyone know what's going on?
(Well, I'll split the post in two, and see if that works).
ReplyDeletedanderhall: "Sisters grow up together all of the time, and if they grow up knowing they could marry that could change how sisters in general relate to each other."
YES. It's about time someone said it. But let's expand on that thought a bit, because it gets at the heart of one of the big reasons I oppose SSM.
Obviously, I think danderhall would also agree with this statement: Brothers and sisters grow up together all of the time, and if they grow up knowing they could marry that could change how brothers and sisters in general relate to each other.
Now let's expand on this a little more:
FRIENDS (of the same gender) grow up together all of the time, and if they grow up knowing they could marry that could change how friends in general relate to each other.
This is a point I've been raising from the beginning of the SSM debate, and I believe this is just one of the reasons why SSM will be destructive to society.
For now, I'm just going to give a couple examples of what I mean. I don't think it needs to be said that to this day, it is very difficult for a married heterosexual to have a close friendship with someone else of the opposite gender without arousing strong misgivings from their spouse. With SSM causing more and more people to be open to the idea of homosexuality or bisexuality, could SSM not result in increasingly strong misgivings from heterosexuals regarding their spouses SAME-gender friendships? In other words, will husbands become increasingly jealous of their wives' (female) best friends (and wives of their husbands' male friends)? How will this affect marriages? Married people still need other friends---will this lead to an increased sense of isolation which could cause more marital tension and eventual breakup? And will children and adolescents feel less secure in their same-gender friendships, seriously damaging the "latency period" in which children need to develop their non-sexual relations? And what will be the ripple effects? Please don't respond to this question as if there was a neat dividing line between gay and straight with no degrees of bisexuality, something we all know is not true.
Interestingly, Gabriel Rosenberg, a strong supporter of SSM, has come close to hitting the nail on the head on this issue, though he fails to carry through to the obvious conclusion:
ReplyDelete"So what specific role conflicts emerge from allowing polgyamy or incestuous marriage? Foremost is the legal right of a married couple to have sexual relations conflicting with the legal prohibitions of adultery and incest. Until recently legal prohibitions on homosexual relations would have caused a conflict, but such prohibitions no longer exist. Some may argue that this is just evading the question. SSM advocates have generally argued that prohibitions on homosexual relations are unjustified. Couldn't one similarly argue adultery and incest prohibitions are unjustified. The problem remains, though, one of role conflict. If sexual relations were permitted with close kin that would sexualize such relations. Siblings, for example, could no longer be as close with the knowledge that it was legally permissible for a sexual relation to develop whether or not such a relation actually develops. Similarly the knowledge that a spouse is legally permitted to develop a sexual relation with another inhibits the development of a close relationship between the married couple. I should note these harms occur for all, even those opposed to such relations. Permitting homosexuality does similarly affect the relationships between men (and those between women)..." (Italics mine).
http://gabrielrosenberg.typepad.com/galois/2004/02/slippery_slope__1.html
Up to this point Rosenberg is right on target. But then:
"Permitting homosexuality does similarly affect the relationships between men (and those between women). The effect is not so significant, though, because unlike adultery and incest it's not interfering with the more important family relationships. It only affects general social relationships like business contacts".
There is where I disagree with him. My argument is that friendships are more important social relationships than business contracts, and I think Rosenberg, by not examining the effect of SSM on friendship, is leaving out a major question that might undermine his contention that the effect of SSM will not be as great as would that of sibling marriage.
Danderhall,
ReplyDeleteThis should not be surprising as the law generally doesn't distinguish between male and female, but it distinguishes all of the time between the individual and a group of people.
Well, good on ya' mate.
You just described, in pretty good detail, the problem in saying that equality between same-sex couples and equal gendered couple is the same as civil rights equality.
The equality of the civil rights movement was for every person in every race, taking on individual rights and entitlements.
The equality arguments I've seen from you and Carlo amount to a couple's rights -- which is a group not an individual.
And as far as a couple goes, the pinnacle of equality is the inclusive relationship of equal gender participation. The pinnacle of recognizing children's entitlements and rights comes from the very relationship that created the child.
Thats marriage equality that I don't see being improved with sex-segregation.
So, having pointed out how fallacious your application of individual rights are in a recognition of a couple (or group) is, lets also note that you fail to show why the distinction behind the male+female couple (group) relationship is not a valid distinction.
But you did draw one more distinction...
Two sisters even if they wanted to commit to each other for life, we don't allow it
Which is interesting because sisters follow the same commitment pattern that you described with you and your wife above. Now, granted they are different, and you can no doubt name the differences. But since you didn't in your explanation on the importance of marriage, I wonder if they really matter?
The distinction you did draw was...
For one, they already have a family relationship between other that is recognized.
However, one is also quick to note that their sisterly relationship does not confer on them the same rights and recognition as you described above...
There is no automatic inference of care, or power to make decisions in their behalf. There is no transmittal of extended benefits from third parties. In short, to point that their relationship exists on one level undermines your claim for equal benefits and protections.
Nor can I see why two sisters are not as worthy as any other same-sex couple in having this protection of mutual trust, dependency and support.
Sisters grow up together all of the time, and if they grow up knowing they could marry that could change how sisters in general relate to each other.
Change how? You have to argue where the danger is, change in and of itself is not threatening, right?
Good points, On Lawn.
ReplyDeleteOne of the retorts we always get is "How! Explain exactly how SSM is going to hurt society".
Well, danderhall, explain exactly how allowing sister-sister or brother-brother marriage is going to harm society, and in a way in which an analagous argument against SSM relating to the impact on friendship as I've started above cannot be made.
Suggestion to my fellow Opiners: If there is a subtopic that merits extensive discussion, perhaps lift it to a blogpost of its own so that readers can follow along more easily. Citing previous comments, linking to them and quoting them, might help with a transition to a seperated discussion. I realize these are inter-related topics, but so are most blogposts on this blog. Just a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteRK the subtopic of the line drawn against some related people (but not all related people) ss an example of a discussion which would probably gain by a blogpost of its own. Note that there are Western countries that do not treat consenting adults as criminal for engaging in incestuous sexual behavior. And SSMers are fond of saying that love (a euphemism for sexual behavior) makes a family. So lots there for a seperated, but related, discussion, I think.
ReplyDeleteThe equality arguments I've seen from you and Carlo amount to a couple's rights -- which is a group not an individual.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I just wrote a length post on how marriage designates an individual as one's spouse. The question is whether the gender of that spouse should be relevant to the state. It is quite different than designating a group as one's spouse which is quite a distinction that you choose to ignore. My argument, though, stands whether you ignore it or not.
Change how? You have to argue where the danger is, change in and of itself is not threatening, right?
Rosenberg seems to explain that well. Which leads us to R.K.'s concern about the impact of same-sex marriage on friendship. The concern is really about the growing acceptance of homosexuality. This acceptance has been rapidly growing for the last 40 years. I'd bet it has impacted friendship (as has the growing role of women in our society), but we've adjusted fairly easily. I have had friends male and female, straight, and gay, both before I was married and since. My wife as well. It hasn't been an issue. You may have had different experiences. We each have our opinions.
The other issue with this, though, is a practical one. The alternative seems to be to deny that gay people exist. I know they exist, though. I know plenty of gay people. And the idea, by the way, that they should marry people if the opposite sex I find awful. For years, they often did, but from the people I've spoken with the results were never good for anyone involved. I think society's growing acceptance of homosexuality, and having more people out and open about their orientation (which is both a cause and effect of that acceptance) has been a resounding change for the benefit.
You can argue all you want about similar benefits from out and open sexual relationships between siblings. I don't believe it.
danderhall, I think the point is about comparing types of multi-person relationships. You have emphasized a binary subcategory but have not really provided an argument in favor of treating that subcategory differently based on sexual orientation rather than, say, relatedness.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of sexual attraction and behvior, there is a phenomenon known as genetic sexual attraction (GSA) that seems to be applicable to related people across the board. If you are going to base your viewpoint on sexual attraction and sexual behavior and sexual romance, then, I don't think your viewpoint would treat some related people differently from other related people.
Is not the relationshp you described earlier, an abiding friendship which is not definitively a sexual type of friendship? So maybe the issue of incest is not the sexual aspect but something else that you have in mind?
Your penultimate paragraph @ 6/07/2009 04:13:00 PM is a false dichotomy.
The SSM laws that have been enacted, or imposed, do not require gayness. So even there the law is blind to what you have emphasized.
Meanwhile the man-woman basis of marriage law does not use sexual orientation as criterion for eligibility nor for ineligibility.
Hence, you are really talking about a type of relationship and that would involve more than one person. A group of two or more. Or a series of twosomes, as in polygamy.
Chairm, sorry if my arguments are seen as going off the track, if that's the case. This is the last post I'll make on the subject in this thread.
ReplyDeleteDanderhall: I'd bet it has impacted friendship (as has the growing role of women in our society), but we've adjusted fairly easily.
x
But you don't think our sibling relationships would adapt easily if marriage between siblings were allowed. You can explain why when we get another thread going on this particular topic. Oh, and I don't agree with you that friendship has adjusted so easily. I've seen already enough cases where jealousy of a spouse's friends has contributed to breakup. (To say, merely, that it hasn't affected you is not a good argument at all if you're trying to argue against a wider social effect).
Anyway, if I comment more on this I'll do it in another blogpost.
On Lawn,
ReplyDelete"If I were to say that, I would have not used the abstraction of marriage as a word. I would have used the meaning of the word as an institution that encourages equal gender participation, and equal recognition of the rights and entitlements of the human mating practice.
Its the meaning, not the label, that confers status."
Repeating your distortion does not make it any less of the distortion. If you truly wished to argue in good faith, then you would have quoted excerpts from my explanations in earlier comments, and explained why my statement was fallacious even in this context. You could have at least demonstrated some understanding or familiarity with my earlier comments. Or if you were unwilling or unable to do this, at the very least you should have requested further clarification from me, rather than assuming that you understand my own meaning better than I do.
This is to inform you that our discussions are now over. Read this comment from another thread. As far as I can help it, this will be my last comment addressed to you.
RK, continuing the various topics with new blogposts is just my suggestion for making the inter-related active discussions easier to follow. Use your best judgement, of course, as I really don't wish to discourage these various topics. It has been shaping up as a good exchange, I think.
ReplyDeleteCarlo, I think you've missed the legitimate point of On Lawn's remarks.
ReplyDeleteIf you have distinguished your view of marriage from your view of these nonmarital arrangements or types of relationships, please provide the link.
If you haven't, then, please clarify.
Is it fair to say that there is more than just the word or the label that distinguishes? Is it the meaning or essential features? Something else?
Minus such a clarification, all that is left is the word or the label. Right?
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteMy issue with On Lawn's remarks has nothing to do with whether or not they convey a legitimate point. My grievance is that he is taking a rhetorically dishonest stance: he insists that I am saying something I am not saying. Specifically, he insists that I desire to use the label "marriage" to confer a meaning upon same-sex relationships that does not exist; in other words, that I wish to confer what I believe to be an undeserved status upon same-sex relationships. But it has been undeniably clear from my earliest discussions with you on this blog, in the thread above, that I believe committed same-sex relationships already possess the most important and defining characteristics of marriage; that these relationships already deserve recognition as marriage. I understand that my meaning of the word "marriage" differs from his, and yours, and I would have been happy to debate that meaning. Instead he chose to assume that my meaning was the same as his, that I didn't believe same-sex relationships embodied that meaning, and that I wished to falsely confer that meaning anyway using the label "marriage." This is not just a difference of opinion, it is an outright misrepresentation of my position.
It would have been fine if he had merely misunderstood my position. But when I explicitly stated that additional context in earlier comments would clarify my argument and rebut his accusation, he deliberately ignored this, and merely repeated his distortion. This tells me that his misrepresentation was made without meaningful regard to my intended meaning. In other words, he is not debating in good faith.
With due respect, I do not wish to argue this point with you at length. I already resolved not to have any further discussions with On Lawn. Having the same discussions with you as his proxy is not really much better. Furthermore, I entered into discussions in this blog in order to make an honest case for same-sex marriage, not to have meta-debates about the rhetorical ethics of other participants in those discussions.
Carlo, you have made a charge of bad faith based on the legitimate point that someone has drawn from your own comments in the discussion thusfar.
ReplyDeleteIf you dispute the point because it is derived from an inaccurate representation of your viewpoint, then, please clarify your viewpoint.
That has been the goal of the blogpost and of all of our exchanges in the comments here. To some extent, we've exchanged meta-comments because of the goal of giving you a platform to express your viewpoint. We are going further than the usual exchanges with the typical commenter.
As to the actual disagreement on the marrige issue, it is true that you have said that "committed same-sex relationships already possess the most important and defining characteristics of marriage".
I have not been able to put up a new blogpost that would summarize those characteristics and to give you the opportunity to confirm, correct, and clarify. The discussion has continued here and it can be difficult to follow the twists and turns in a long series of comments. but I'll try to return our focus on the original blogpost at the top of this comment section.
For now you have confirmed and clarified point number 1 from the original blogpost above. Subsequently you have also begun to discuss the meaning of SSM (the items that walk us through from A to H under point number 2). I think the discussion has advanced a little too rapidly to item H.
I, and other readers, may have missed your take on how these characteristics are definitive of your idea of marriage but do not also apply to the various kinds of living arrangments and types of relationships that are outside of marriage which On Lawn (and RK) have listed and discussed.
This is probably where item H under #2 links directly back to #1.
* * *
While I am not a proxy, and it is true that our policy is not to encourage meta-commentary in general comment sections, I think it only fair to request that you (and other commenters) continue to conduct yourself as our guest (and you have been doing so very well, thank you) and to understand that On Lawn is one of your hosts here.
While you are free to not reply to his contributions, the legitimate point was raised and this is a good opportunity to address it in the context of the original blogpost.
If you have further meta-commentary concerns, please feel welcomed to email directly rather than more meta-commentary between us in this comment section. Thanks again, Carlo.
To all, due to my not posting a new set of blogposts on the various topics raised here, the discussion has naturally progressed from a focus on clarifying Carlo's viewpoint -- that is, achieving an accurate representation as best as he and we can formulate -- to the occassional foray into debating that viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteDebate is a very good way to distill such clarifications. And Carlo, early on, did welcome debate.
I will try not to debate and only try to restate as accurately as I can what I think is Carlo's viewpoint. It can be a tedious process but it can also be very helpful in avoiding misunderstandings -- or at least the perception of misunderstandings. That's the goal of my original blogpost -- to get a confirmed restatement of this pro-SSM viewpoint.
My apologies, again, for not yet putting up the summary blogposts so that we can advance the discussion in the (plodding) way that I had in mind. Tech problems are almost all fixed.
Carlo,
ReplyDeleteNow attack what I said as you will, but my clear qualifier put right in the beginning of what you quoted, "If I were to state that [...]", would indicate I would not have allowed the two to be disjointed.
Once again you stated...
Because, for the bajillionth time, the word "marriage" confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can.
Not even the meaning of marriage, or even the protections of marriage that might be considered relevant to both cases is enough. You specifically mentioned the word had value in and of itself. The table (or context) was laid out by John Howard...
> If we ban same-sex procreation, and if we protect male-female procreation, we are saying that same-sex couples don't have equal rights, and once you accept that, why bother holding out for the name marriage?
Name, label, "word" or whatever you want to call the letter combination "marriage" to be written and spoken in that context. All of the "the most important and defining characteristics of marriage" being extended, (minus as John Howard notes and I believe Carlo agrees are the ones that have no relevance to same-sex couples) whats in a name?
he insists that I desire to use the label "marriage" to confer a meaning upon same-sex relationships that does not exist
Sure, there exists a subset of the meaning that exists in gender segregative and gender inclusive relationships. But that is just a subset. There is a the very core of that meaning which, deserved or not, is simply irrelevant to same-sex couples and should not be the baby thrown out with the bathwater here. I stated that meaning this way...
"I would have used the meaning of the word as an institution that encourages equal gender participation, and equal recognition of the rights and entitlements of the human mating practice."
Mating is how we create and produce children, ideally in marriage, is it not?
You clearly misrepresent my case as it is not presented as an assumption, then, what is relevant (deserved or not) and what isn't. The contradiction is more than clear and evident. And my assessment of your argument is that no manner of analog or amphibology in words and labels is going to cover the science of biology in mating practice and what that means.
I would have been happy to debate that meaning. Instead he chose to assume that my meaning was the same as his
Laughable, to be sure. Considering that Carlo's definition includes a subset of the qualities I see in marriage. That means it has similarity, but also has key differences.
But even those differences are out the window when, for these differences Carlo mentions, "for the bajillionth time, the word 'marriage' confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can". With all the relevant status and recognitions on the table, its not enough. The word itself has a power while denying the meaning rooted in our own human biology and humanitarian concern for our attachment to our own history that brings it such gravitas.
Carlo: Because, for the bajillionth time, the word "marriage" confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can.
ReplyDeleteAnd from whence does this "status" and "recognition" spring? Did the word marriage have great meaning and the relationship itself only became valuable once it was named or was the relationship valuable and the name gained its status from the relationship? In short, did the relationship get its value from the name or did the name get its value from the relationship?
Danderhall,
ReplyDeleteMe: >> "The equality arguments I've seen from you and Carlo amount to a couple's rights -- which is a group not an individual."
Danderhall: > Not at all. I just wrote a length post on how marriage designates an individual as one's spouse.
Your ability to be completely incongruent in your own arguments is not my concern.
But I will point such occasions out as time permits.
You state that you do "[n]ot at all" infer "a couple's rights". Yet state clearly a relationship between "an individual as one's spouse".
How you think that is not a couple is beyond me. But its simply inane.
It is quite different than designating a group as one's spouse which is quite a distinction that you choose to ignore.
Lets define a group as a set with more than one element. The number of elements is (logically) the set of whole numbers. Lets define adding as including (or concatenating) one and only one more element into that group. And an individual is only one element.
Adding to an individual creates a group because the number of elements is now greater than one. Adding to a group creates a group because the number of elements only increases and thus always greater than one. From two on, we're still only talking about groups. What makes one group number more worthy of recognition of mutual trust than another?
Aside from math, legally you can and do designate a group in supporting you when you assign two (as in a group) in support of a child. Legally, in trusts (or legal entities of trust over one's own property and affairs) it is common to give primary, secondary, and even tertiary power to support and make decisions for you while incapacitated or even dead. The additional redundancy of additional designates is a feature, and a freedom to be afforded. Why do you discriminate against that very rational choice?
Even beyond that, our legislators are a group which we trust to take care of us and make decisions for us. We choose (commonly) at least two to represent us in such matters for municipality, state and federal matters; a councilperson or an assembly-person, possibly a senator, and presiding executive (mayor, governor, president).
We have mechanisms for assigning trust to individuals and to groups, or even groups to groups (like corporations), all the time.
So coming at it from either leg of your argument, it still doesn't stand. It is still a group you are talking about (meaning the recognition of a relationship in the eyes of the state and not just an individual) and there exists the legal need and ability to designate a group to support you.
The alternative seems to be to deny that gay people exist.
False, there is another alternative (implied by my question above) which is to recognize all relationships of mutual trust assignment as equal. It recognizes gays exist, pedophiles exist, polygamists exist, polyamorists exist, and most importantly, friends exist. Life long committed friends.
No, I don't see whats left for your argument to stand on.
Carlo, the ban wouldn't ban any research. The wording would be something like what the PCBE recommended to Congress in 2004 and something like what Missouri enacted in 2006. It would ban the creation of human beings by any method other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman. Yes, it would therefore be a ban on any and all techniques that might be used to achieve same-sex procreation, and create unequal rights for same-sex couples. It wouldn't be a ban on specific techniques while keeping a right in principle to attempt same sex conception. The idea is to affirm that all people are created equal, with unmodified genes.
ReplyDeleteResearch could continue under the ban, and if Congress decides in the future to lift the ban and allow genetic modification, then people would have equal rights with someone of the same sex. So you are making a straw man argument that the ban would ban research. I would oppose a ban on research, which should never be limited or restricted.
Now, it's true though we won't reap the full benefits or stop the suffering caused by genetic engineering and same-sex conception being a possibility unless we consider the ban permanent, and researchers redirected their research to medical uses, and I think society would soon recognize that and we'd enter a new age of caring and responsibility when we put the silliness of Transhumanism and Postgenderism in the rearview mirror for good. But that wouldn't be a law, it would just be a new enlightenment.
So I think you are being disingenuous to pretend that you'd be fine with same-sex procreation being banned someday. You don't even want it banned now, when everyone can see it is obviously unsafe, and you don't want it banned in the future, after it is safe, and I can't see how you would accept a ban during some period in between. You seem to be saying you'd accept a ban if some labs doing it and it resulted in horrible defects, but that is obviously too late, and I can't believe that you wouldn't continue to insist that more research needs to be done and it can't be banned. You just can't accept that people should have a significant right with someone of the other sex, so I don't believe you when you pretend you are open to a ban.
You are also being sneaky about a married couples right to use their own genes. You say you can't imagine a situation where a married man and woman could be banned, but yet you refuse to affirm that a married man and woman have a right to procreate with their own genes. I can easily imagine situations, we are already seeing calls for mandatory screening, and people are already being pressured to use "better" gametes than their own. That pressure alone is a violation of their right to use their own genes, and it would easily become more than just pressure, since we are after all talking about a third party here, the child, who needs to be protected by the state from negligent parents.
You won't be able to keep hedging for long, pretending that a ban would be acceptable but yet adamantly opposing a ban, and pretending that you aren't stripping conception rights from mariages, but sneakily refusing to affirm that a married man and woman indeed have conception rights.
Chairm,
ReplyDelete"Carlo, you have made a charge of bad faith based on the legitimate point that someone has drawn from your own comments in the discussion thusfar.
If you dispute the point because it is derived from an inaccurate representation of your viewpoint, then, please clarify your viewpoint."
Generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree. I assure you that I did not make that accusation lightly. I realize that some degree of misunderstanding (and even some hostility) is inevitable in discussion between wildly diverging viewpoints regarding deeply held beliefs, and I think you'll agree that I've exhibited a strong willingness to politely clarify my views whenever I'm asked. And when faced with an argument the meaning or significance of which I don't immediately grasp, I usually respond by admitting my own confusion, and requesting further clarification. Furthermore, I can think of at least two separate instances, from two of your other co-bloggers, when my argument was misrepresented egregiously, and in an accusatory manner that I felt was less than fair; but I refrained from making charges of bad faith (or even naming those persons now), because these were isolated instances and I was willing to let them go. I do think of myself as a guest here, and I do greatly appreciate the hospitality that has been extended to me.
On Lawn, however, has not treated me with the same courtesy. Very early in my discussions with him, when he perceived a contradiction in my arguments, he didn't restrict himself to pointing out the contradiction or requesting clarification; he immediately accused me of playing a "shell game." I'm sure you're aware that the shell game is perhaps the most widely known confidence trick in the world; I can only conclude that his meaning was to imply dishonesty or hypocrisy on my part. This was my first inkling that his intent was not to have a civil exchange of ideas with me. This was strongly supported, in my mind, by his even more uncivil behavior to Mr. Walker. While you, like On Lawn, felt that Mr. Walker was not duly respective of his children's rights, you managed to make this argument without comparing his behavior and morality to that of slave-owners, an insult akin to a Godwin's Law violation in its offensiveness and destructiveness to civil discourse. Indeed, there are many other reasons, major and minor, that led me to believe that On Lawn was not arguing in good faith, I simply do not have the time to list them all now. Even if every single one of these instances resulted from honest misunderstandings, I am still forced to conclude that our modes of thinking and rhetorical methods are so severely, mutually incompatible that a productive discussion between us is impossible.
With respect, this will be my last word on this topic. I understand why you took the time to address the issue on On Lawn's behalf, and I even appreciate why this was necessary on your part. But I think it's now time to move on. Hopefully my comments from this point on be aimed primarily at clarifying my views on same-sex marriage.
Carlo, I think your latest comment undermines your contribution to the ongoing discussion. As I said earlier, you are at liberty to choose to do that.
ReplyDeleteIf you have further meta-commentary concerns, please feel welcomed to email directly rather than add more meta-commentary between us in this comment section.
Thanks.
Carlo: when he perceived a contradiction in my arguments...he immediately accused me of playing a "shell game."
ReplyDeleteDo a search for the phrase "shell game" in this thread and tell me what you find.
...comparing his behavior and morality to that of slave-owners...
Do a search for the phrase "slave owners" in this thread and tell me what you find.
Tell me also, do Carlo's words here aptly describe slave owners: "At the root of that injustice are ignorance and bigotry, often cloaked in religious dogma." Who then, is invoking an "insult akin to a Godwin's Law violation in its offensiveness and destructiveness to civil discourse?" Or does that only happen when someone else does it to you and not the other way around?
With respect, this will be my last word on this topic.
Can I get a "Hallelujah!" Now perhaps Carlo can address the substance of On Lawn's statements instead of conjuring all this stereotypical drama.
Where we were, before Carlo veered off onto a personal attack of On Lawn, was Carlo was unable to explain:
1) If the word marriage got its "status and recognition" from the underlying institution and not the other way around,
and
2) if "same-sex relationships" are already worthy of the same "status and recognition",
why
3) slapping "same-sex relationships" with the title "marriage" is the only way which "confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can?"
Explaining away that contradiction is hard. Very hard, as it turns out. Much harder, in fact, than changing the subject with a personal attack on the questioner.
John Howard,
ReplyDelete"Carlo, the ban wouldn't ban any research. The wording would be something like what the PCBE recommended to Congress in 2004 and something like what Missouri enacted in 2006."
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the specifics of those laws/bans. Would you mind enlightening me on the relevant details?
"It would ban the creation of human beings by any method other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman. Yes, it would therefore be a ban on any and all techniques that might be used to achieve same-sex procreation, and create unequal rights for same-sex couples. It wouldn't be a ban on specific techniques while keeping a right in principle to attempt same sex conception. The idea is to affirm that all people are created equal, with unmodified genes."
Well then this wouldn't be a ban based on safety, it would be a categorical ban based on principle. Which brings us back to my request for a satisfactory justification for such a ban. And remember, wanting to prevent eugenics or genetic enhancement doesn't justify banning SSP.
"Research could continue under the ban, and if Congress decides in the future to lift the ban and allow genetic modification, then people would have equal rights with someone of the same sex. So you are making a straw man argument that the ban would ban research. I would oppose a ban on research, which should never be limited or restricted."
Sorry, I again misunderstood the nature of the ban you proposed. I'm glad to know you oppose restriction on research, as a general principle I too dislike such restrictions. Although as a practical matter, it's very hard to perform research on an illegal procedure, no?
"Now, it's true though we won't reap the full benefits or stop the suffering caused by genetic engineering and same-sex conception being a possibility unless we consider the ban permanent, and researchers redirected their research to medical uses, and I think society would soon recognize that and we'd enter a new age of caring and responsibility when we put the silliness of Transhumanism and Postgenderism in the rearview mirror for good. But that wouldn't be a law, it would just be a new enlightenment."
I think you overestimate the power of law in affecting culture. Marijuana has been illegal for years, but millions of Americans continue to use it. The same with Prohibition; it achieved the status of a Constitutional amendment, but this didn't stop people from drinking; and eventually it was repealed. More generally, outrageous restrictions on freedom (and I'm not saying your ban counts as one) usually don't last in democracies.
"So I think you are being disingenuous to pretend that you'd be fine with same-sex procreation being banned someday. You don't even want it banned now, when everyone can see it is obviously unsafe, and you don't want it banned in the future, after it is safe, and I can't see how you would accept a ban during some period in between. You seem to be saying you'd accept a ban if some labs doing it and it resulted in horrible defects, but that is obviously too late, and I can't believe that you wouldn't continue to insist that more research needs to be done and it can't be banned. You just can't accept that people should have a significant right with someone of the other sex, so I don't believe you when you pretend you are open to a ban."
ReplyDeleteAll right, just to show that I'm not being disingenuous, I'm willing to propose a hypothetical compromise. Of all your justifications for a ban, safety has always seemed most credible to me. Unlike you, I don't expect that scientists are going to attempt same-sex procreation without due concern to ethics and safety, but maybe I'm wrong. So for the sake of argument, I'd agree to a law imposing heavy restrictions on attempts at same-sex procreation, so that the government will grant a license for commercial SSP services only to laboratories that have demonstrated irrefutably that they can perform the procedure without any significant risk of deformities or side-effects to the resulting child (or the parents, for that matter).*
So now what? How would this be a reason to ban same-sex marriage?
"You are also being sneaky about a married couples right to use their own genes. You say you can't imagine a situation where a married man and woman could be banned, but yet you refuse to affirm that a married man and woman have a right to procreate with their own genes."
But I DO affirm the right of a married man and woman to conceive with their own genes! I've argued as to how restrictions on this right would be constitutionally (and practically) impossible! And if anyone tried to pass a law restricting these rights, I would speak out against this right alongside you.
"I can easily imagine situations, we are already seeing calls for mandatory screening, and people are already being pressured to use "better" gametes than their own. That pressure alone is a violation of their right to use their own genes, and it would easily become more than just pressure, since we are after all talking about a third party here, the child, who needs to be protected by the state from negligent parents."
No, pressure is not a violation of anyone's rights. People have a democratic right to free speech, and to advocate for whatever policy they wish. As for the odds of becoming more than pressure, I disagree, and I've already detailed why. Eugenics is, at best, a fringe movement with no popular following, most people aren't even aware of it.
"You won't be able to keep hedging for long, pretending that a ban would be acceptable but yet adamantly opposing a ban, and pretending that you aren't stripping conception rights from mariages, but sneakily refusing to affirm that a married man and woman indeed have conception rights."
I've now proposed a sort of ban I'd be okay with, and I've (re-)affirmed the conception rights of married men and women. The ball is in your court.
*This is actually why I think the entire issue is moot. While I don't quite see the ethical problem in performing a safe same-sex procreation procedure, the research necessary to refine the technique to a sufficient level of safety would require the experimental creation of human embryos, which strikes me as outrageously unethical. So as a practical matter, I don't really believe SSP will ever be a reality. I have the same opinion regarding human reproductive cloning.
op-ed,
ReplyDelete"Do a search for the phrase "shell game" in this thread and tell me what you find.
..
Do a search for the phrase "slave owners" in this thread and tell me what you find."
As I said, I don't really want to discuss this further, but if you want to know what I was talking about, I suggest you read the thread that followed this post. I realize we have philosophical and legal disagreements regarding marriage, and I admit I'm occasionally too hasty in composing my arguments, but I'm neither so stupid nor deceitful that I'd invent highly specific and falsifiable accusations out of whole cloth.
"Tell me also, do Carlo's words here aptly describe slave owners: "At the root of that injustice are ignorance and bigotry, often cloaked in religious dogma." Who then, is invoking an "insult akin to a Godwin's Law violation in its offensiveness and destructiveness to civil discourse?" Or does that only happen when someone else does it to you and not the other way around?"
The difference is that I wasn't actually comparing my political opponents to slave-owners, or accusing them of bigotry. That comment was directed at Chairm, and yet he took no offense, and in fact seems fairly assured of my civility and honest intentions. I was pointing out the largely irrefutable fact that gays and lesbians have faced terrible injustice and discrimination throughout history, and this was largely due to ignorance and bigotry. Or do you deny that this is the case?
"1) If the word marriage got its "status and recognition" from the underlying institution and not the other way around,
and
2) if "same-sex relationships" are already worthy of the same "status and recognition",
why
3) slapping "same-sex relationships" with the title "marriage" is the only way which "confers a degree of status and recognition that no other word can?"
Explaining away that contradiction is hard."
Perhaps you'll have to explain further, because I'm not quite sure how you think 3) contradicts 1) and 2). I would quibble a bit with some of your phrasing, and clarify by pointing out that I wasn't referring to ALL same-sex relationships. But the basic structure of that argument seems sound to me. (Actually, I do have a rough idea of what you mean, but I'd rather you clarify first).
Carlo: ...if you want to know what I was talking about, I suggest you read the thread that followed this post.
ReplyDeleteIs there some reason you're dragging that into this post? That's my point. Threads are kept separate for a reason. If you want to talk about something On Lawn said in another thread, take it to that thread. Bringing it up in this thread is the very definition of a distraction.
Or do you deny that this is the case?
It's your claim, you back it up. To what "injustice and discrimination" do you refer, and how was "ignorance and bigotry" its cause? Your "ignorance and bigotry" pleading sounds a lot like the Utopianist fallacy, actually.
But the basic structure of that argument seems sound to me.
Does it now?
(Actually, I do have a rough idea of what you mean, but I'd rather you clarify first).
And now we have come full circle as On Lawn already provided the clarification:
"Its simply using the word 'marriage' like a brand on fashionable clothing. Its taking the name, but completely being oblivious to the power behind it."
After all, how does it hurt your designer clothes if I manufacture my own clothes and put your designer's label on them? I think my clothes are every bit as high quality as the designer's so clearly the only way to show that is by using the same designer label.
I, too, provided this clarification earlier:
"And from whence does this 'status' and 'recognition' spring? Did the word marriage have great meaning and the relationship itself only became valuable once it was named or was the relationship valuable and the name gained its status from the relationship? In short, did the relationship get its value from the name or did the name get its value from the relationship?"
op-ed,
ReplyDelete"It's your claim, you back it up. To what "injustice and discrimination" do you refer, and how was "ignorance and bigotry" its cause?"
So are you now withdrawing your implication that I too was engaging in offensive smears? In any case, the discrimination I was referring to has been so widespread throughout history I'm surprised you would bother challenging the point. See here, here, here, here, here, and here, for starters.
More on your other argument later. It's an important point worthy of a thoughtful response. Plus there are other comments that I need to respond to.
Carlo: So are you now withdrawing your implication that I too was engaging in offensive smears?
ReplyDeleteBy asking you to back up your "offensive smears?"
...so widespread throughout history I'm surprised you would bother challenging the point.
What's so surprising is that if this is as "widespread throughout history" as you say that you could do no better than to point to wikipedia pages about your brand of identity politics rather than provide the examples asked for.
What's so surprising is that someone who accepts as an article of faith that "injustice and discrimination" is "widespread throughout history" and caused by "ignorance and bigotry" cannot produce even a single example to prove such an "obvious" point, particularly when that someone expresses such open disdain for unquestioning adherence to "dogma." Can you really not have looked into such a claim already? If you cannot produce even an example of the "discrimination and injustice" you claim is so "widespread throughout history," how can you know already that whatever examples of it there are exist because of "ignorance and bigotry?" You should actually read that post I referenced about Utopianist dogma.
Contrary to what you claim, it is your utopianist dogma which I challenge. I'm surprised that was not obvious from what I wrote given I actually mentioned that by name. I am surprised that your response to me was so wide of that mark.
More on your other argument later. It's an important point worthy of a thoughtful response.
It seems both "points" actually merited a more "thoughtful response."
Carlo, here is Missouri's 2006 cloning law. You can find the PCBE's recommendation on my eggandsperm.blogspot.com site. The Egg and Sperm Civil Union compromise wording should be somewhere in between, in that it should have the "sperm of a man" and "egg of a woman" language, because the "of" implies no modifications or artificial gametes, with the more general wording prohibiting conception of a child from the PCBE's "prohibit attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm."
ReplyDeleteSo presumably animal research could continue, as well as embryonic research that wasn't attempting to lead to a child. But I think animal research and embryonic research are both unethical, especially in pursuit of something which is so unnecessary and unwise in principle.
So yes, it would be a ban in principle, not based on safety. All pregnancy is risky, and we don't want to start saying that some couples are not allowed to procreate because of high risk of birth defects. Currently we let all married couples attempt to conceive a child, and that should continue to be the case. Your proposed ban would mean that some married couples - who are declared equal to all married couples - would be publicly prohibited from procreating, which would be a very bad precedent, and a very big change to marriage. You even get that the ban wouldn't really be temporary even if it was just based on safety, because it will always be too dangerous to make the first attempts necessary to prove that it is safe. The children would have to be science experiments their whole lives, and their children too, in order to study long term effects of being born from re-imprinted modified genes.
Creating a child with two fathers or two mothers, and no mother or no father, would be an unethical thing to do even if a breakthrough were to take place that made it safe and reliable. The child and the public would know that they were genetically modified, and were an extreme novelty that has never before existed on earth. It would be cruel to the child to deprive it of a human connection to the history and all other animals on the planet, except maybe earthworms. And it would almost certainly open the door to all other forms of modification, even though you claim that it wouldn't. The fact is that more people regard genetic modification to fix defects and improve the genes as the much more ethical use of genetic engineering than same-sex conception, which is completely unnecessary and creates risk instead of attempting to reduce risk.
Your proposal, where same-sex conception remains a right in principle even though labs are required to wait until they can prove it is safe, is incompatible with granting marriage to same-sex couples, due to the public nature of being a same-sex couple and labs being prohibited publicly from attempting same-sex conception. It creates a public status of being prohibited from procreating, even if only for the time being and possibly forever. It creates different rights depending on which sex a person couples with. It calls for different names. Civil Unions make sense for this situation, Carlo, and they can be changed to marriage when a lab is allowed to offer same-sex conception services. Seeing as it would bring equal protections to thousands of couples immediately, it is really selfish and hurtful of you to keep making such a dangerous and churlish demand for the word marriage.