The approval of the antigay Proposition 8 by county voters last year is more an exception than the rule of recent developments in local politics.
The California Marriage Amendment was not "antigay". Going against what is favored by homosexuality political advocacy groups does not necessarily make something antigay. The CMA does not address homosexual behavior or orientation.
[Much more after the jump.]
Recently a broad coalition of Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, Trangender (LGBT) leaders and progressive organizations united around a 3-year effort to win back marriage equality in California by repealing Prop. 8 in 2012. The drive holds a chance for O.C. voters to reconsider their stand on the equality of committed same-sex couples under state law and whether they want the image of intolerance, however deserved, to be a lasting legacy.
If there was any intolerance exhibited by voters, it was against judicial usurpation of their power. We are broadly tolerant of homosexual behavior. Nonmarital associations are not equal to marriage, even if marriage laws are extended to them. This is an issue of basic reality.
This patronizing attempt at scolding Orange County conservatives is ridiculous.
Right-wing politics is losing its hold on the long time hotbed of conservatism and home of the Nixon Presidential Library.First, marriage affirmation is not necessarily right-wing. Secondly, what evidence is offered to back up this claim? Read on...
County voters evicted former Congressman Bob Dornan from his Garden Grove-area House seat 13 years ago.Uh, yeah. Because a controversial, bombastic Congressman lost his seat under questionable votes (possibly by noncitizens), this is supposed to mean we're all ready to chuck the idea that marriage is different from nonmarriage?
Just last fall, the Obama campaign reduced to a mere 30,000 votes the traditional "Orange bounce," or the margin of more than 200,000 votes by which the GOP, as recently as 2004, has carried the county in presidential elections.This presumes that all conservative voters got out and voted in an election where their basic choices were Obama and McCain.
Rank-and-file conservatives need to grapple with issues of liberty inherent in rejecting marriage equality through a popular vote. Should government interfere in denying some couples the same respect and rights that others enjoy through marriage?Yes, it is perfectly legitimate for the law to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently – to treat different behaviors differently. Much law is based on exactly that. Regardless, California has a domestic partnership law that treats domestic partnerships like marriage. So this push in California is mainly about a minority of a minority hijacking our language for political and social engineering purposes.
Should the constitutional amendment process be used as a tool to target the freedom and equality of any group of Californians – and by majority vote restrict it?No such thing was done. We are all subject to the marriage laws, regardless of our sexual orientation. The CMA did not create a separate set of laws for any group.
Prop. 8 passed last fall with 52 percent of the vote.
That was with a high turnout of Obama voters and young voters, too.
The paper printed some letters in response:
Michael R. Sumners of Santa Ana wrote:
The passage of Proposition 8 had far more to do with other people of faith, minorities who were Obama Democrats, than it ever did with O.C. Republicans.And as far as gay issues go, Orange County for years now has been a hotbed of tolerance. But tolerating something, or being required to tolerate it under the law, is a far cry from being forced to accept it as "normal" or just the same as.
In the case of Prop. 8 that something is that gay relationships are just the same as straight relationships, when it is self-evident that they are not.
Right on the mark.
Is it possible that more conservatives in Orange County are going to roll over and let marriage neutering advocates have their way with our laws? Perhaps – and we should work against that, reminding people why marriage matters and why we need to fight the counterfeiting of marriage. However, I think the writers are grasping straws. This is yet more of the same "don't vote your convictions, vote my feelings, or you're a bigot" talk.
"No such thing was done."
ReplyDeleteOf course such a thing was done. Before the CMA, same-sex couples were allowed to marry. After it was passed, they weren't allowed to marry anymore. This was both the clear intent and practical effect of the CMA, to limit the freedoms of gays and lesbians with regard to the legal status of their relationships. So it's incredibly disingenuous to say that no group of Californians had their freedom and equality targeted and restricted.
ax, the requirements of marriage licensing apply to everyone, male and female, regardless of sexual orientation. This has remained true for the years leading up to the California Supreme Court decision to neuter state marriage licensing, it was true after that decision was implemented, and it remains true with the CMA in effect.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't the place for the court to make the decision, as the previous law treated all individuals equally, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or "race".
You completely ignored my argument; in fact you're ignoring your own argument. You claim that the CA amendment process was not used to target and restrict the freedom and equality of any group of citizens. But the very purpose of the CMA was to stop one specific group, gays and lesbians, from entering into legally recognized marriages. And this was its clear and undeniable effect: before it was passed, the CA Supreme Court decision was in effect (whether or not you believe that this was a valid exercise of their judicial power) and gays and lesbians could marry; the passage of the CMA took away this privilege. We could quibble about the meaning of "equality" in this instance, but with regard to "freedom," at least, your claim is demonstrably false.
ReplyDeleteBut your argument about marriage equality already existing before the court's decision rings hollow as well. Just because licensing requirements apply equally to every individual doesn't mean that they aren't discriminatory in either intent or effect. Rights, especially marital rights, exist at levels of human organization beyond the individual. Anti-miscegenation laws are of course the obvious example: by your reasoning, they could be defended on the basis that everyone has an equal right to marry a person of their own race. While technically correct, this argument fails morally because it fails to consider the true substance of the right at issue: that people should have the freedom "to join in marriage with the person of one's choice" (Perez v. Sharp). Or as discussed in length in the CA SC decision: "[T]he right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice, and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual."
The "equal" right to opposite-sex marriage of which you speak is meaningless to gays and lesbians, and prevents them from entering into marriage in any real and honest way. The only form of marriage that you would allow them is one that is as antithetical to their very nature as it would be for you, presumably a straight man, to marry another man. Or, as the CA Supreme Court put it:
"In our view, it is sophistic to suggest that this conclusion is avoidable by reason of the circumstance that the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person’s sexual orientation."
As for your argument that it wasn't the place of the court to make the decision, how do you reason this? The very function of the Court is to decide matters of constitutional law, which includes striking down laws that they perceive to be in violation of constitutionally protected rights. Your argument against their decision would be more convincing if you actually bothered to address the arguments laid out at length therein, or at least exhibited some sign of having read it.
ax, I'm not ignoring anything. The law should not care about someone's FEELINGS. The law deals with objective things like - like whether someone is male or female, for instance. The restrictions on marriage licensing apply JUST AS MUCH to straight people as gay people.
ReplyDelete"But the very purpose of the CMA was to stop one specific group, gays and lesbians, from entering into legally recognized marriages."
No, it was to restore marriage licensing to license what is actually marriage.
"gays and lesbians could marry"
They have always been able to marry. Just not someone of the same sex - nor could I. That they don't WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex does not obligate us to neuter marriage licensing.
"Just because licensing requirements apply equally to every individual doesn't mean that they aren't discriminatory in either intent or effect."
All laws discriminate against certain behaviors. I did not deny that the CMA, like all law, discriminates.
There is no right to a state-issued license - not for bride+groom couples, not for anyone.
Race is not the same as sex.
"that people should have the freedom "to join in marriage with the person of one's choice" (Perez v. Sharp)"
So why doesn't that apply to siblings? Or someone who wants bigamy?
"The 'equal' right to opposite-sex marriage of which you speak is meaningless to gays and lesbians,"
And a medical license is meaningless to me, since I don't want to see blood. So do I have a right to be a doctor? Should the licenses be issued to me based on "equality"? How about a University of California diploma, if I don't want to take any of the classes? I was born with an aversion to university classes, let's say.
"and prevents them from entering into marriage in any real and honest way."
Are you saying all of those same-sex couples over the years that have claimed to be married, without a marriage license, have no meaning to their self-proclaimed marriage?
Marriage is voluntary. If someone doesn't like the conditions, they don't have to do it. A lot of men are deciding not to marry because they don't like the conditions - Google "marriage strike".
"As for your argument that it wasn't the place of the court to make the decision, how do you reason this?"
Because the court should only intervene in cases like this if the laws are unconstitutional, and the state's DOMA wasn't. Licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. If the people have specifically voted to reinforce existing conditions (as they did with DOMA), the court should not intervene.
"The law deals with objective things like - like whether someone is male or female, for instance."
ReplyDeleteOh, so being gay and falling in love only with members of the same sex is just an imaginary thing?
"The restrictions on marriage licensing apply JUST AS MUCH to straight people as gay people."
Their effect on gay people is different from their effect on straight people.
"No, it was to restore marriage licensing to license what is actually marriage."
Right, Prop 8 wasn't about gay people at all..
"That they don't WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex does not obligate us to neuter marriage licensing."
Actually, in this case, it does (although I object to the term "neuter"). When a minority seeks inclusion in an important civil institution from which they are effectively barred, the moral and humane response is not to merely ignore their needs.
"All laws discriminate against certain behaviors. I did not deny that the CMA, like all law, discriminates."
Er, in the real world, when people speak of discriminatory laws, they refer to discrimination against people, not behaviors. Your attempts at obfuscation don't amuse me.
"There is no right to a state-issued license - not for bride+groom couples, not for anyone."
Duh, of course there is. If you applied for a marriage license and the state denied it to you arbitrarily, would you concede to them you don't have a right to one anyway? If no such right existed, on what grounds can ANYONE claim to deserve a license?
"So why doesn't that apply to siblings? Or someone who wants bigamy?"
I dunno. Ask the CA Supreme Court.
"And a medical license is meaningless to me, since I don't want to see blood. So do I have a right to be a doctor?"
Well that's weird. Seeing blood isn't the same thing as being a doctor. Of course you still have the right to be one! You could be a psychologist, or radiologist, or dermatologist.
"Should the licenses be issued to me based on "equality"?"
If you qualify for and earn one, sure. They shouldn't deny you a medical license just because you don't fit an overly narrow definition of what a doctor should be.
"How about a University of California diploma, if I don't want to take any of the classes? I was born with an aversion to university classes, let's say."
Let's say there were a law that said diplomas could be granted only to people who owned a car. You could say it isn't discriminatory, since anyone can buy a car. Would that be fair to people who don't own one? Who can't afford one? If they complain, well, according to you their FEELINGS shouldn't matter.
"Are you saying all of those same-sex couples over the years that have claimed to be married, without a marriage license, have no meaning to their self-proclaimed marriage?"
More obfuscation. We're obviously talking about legally recognized (civil) marriages here. Of course those self-proclaimed marriages are meaningful. But they're not legally recognized, which is the point!
"If someone doesn't like the conditions, they don't have to do it."
That doesn't mean the conditions are fair or just.
"Because the court should only intervene in cases like this if the laws are unconstitutional, and the state's DOMA wasn't."
Wow. A lengthy, thoughtfully argued, and well-researched decision by accomplished legal scholars, and you dismiss it as wrong without citing even a single one of its arguments. Excuse me if I'm not convinced.
"Licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. If the people have specifically voted to reinforce existing conditions (as they did with DOMA), the court should not intervene."
By that reasoning, if the people of a state voted to deny marriage licenses to black people, the court shouldn't intervene either.
"Oh, so being gay and falling in love only with members of the same sex is just an imaginary thing?"
ReplyDeleteThe county clerk can't verify whether or not you are in love. They didn't ask me when I got my license. They wanted to see birth certificates, which state our sexes. If "love" was a marital criteria for society, then most of the marriages in history were not really marriages, as they were arranged.
"Their effect on gay people is different from their effect on straight people."
So what? Laws about driving have a different effect on the blind. Laws about milk have a different effect on the lactose intolerant. Laws on hunting have a different effect on hunters than they do on PETA members.
"Right, Prop 8 wasn't about gay people at all.."
There's nothing in the law that talks about sexual orientation. If gay people take things to the court system in an effort to overturn the voters of California, then they are opening themselves up to hearing "no" - either from the court, or from the voters. We didn't pick this fight.
"When a minority seeks inclusion in an important civil institution from which they are effectively barred, the moral and humane response is not to merely ignore their needs."
When that minority can only have the kind of inclusion they are seeking if the institution is fundamentally changed in its core meaning and purpose, then they are not entitled. You don't have the right to demand the other bus riders remove the wheels of a bus because you are prone to motion sickness.
"Er, in the real world, when people speak of discriminatory laws, they refer to discrimination against people, not behaviors. Your attempts at obfuscation don't amuse me."
The fact is, the CMA does not discriminate against people.
>>There is no right to a state-issued license - not for bride+groom couples, not for anyone.<<
"Duh, of course there is. If you applied for a marriage license and the state denied it to you arbitrarily, would you concede to them you don't have a right to one anyway?"
First of all, the bride+groom requirement is not arbitrary. Secondly, if the state ceased to exist tomorrow, I'd still be married. Marriage existed before the state. Thirdly, the state could stop issuing ALL licenses tomorrow, because we don't have a right to a state-issued license. None of us do. If there was a right to a state-issued license, then the 2nd Amendment would necessitate that everyone could obtain licensing to carry firearms, for example - yet the courts permit certain restrictions on that. Why? Because no state issued license is a right. It depends on other people doing something for you, and other people have a right to say "no".
"If no such right existed, on what grounds can ANYONE claim to deserve a license?"
That the state engages in certain services does not mean have a right to those services in the sense that the state could choose not to engage in those services. I think perhaps you have a different definition of the word "rights" than I do, which I have tried to allign as closely to the the Constitutional concept of rights as possible.
"We're obviously talking about legally recognized (civil) marriages here."
Okay - that has to be made clear, as there seems to be a bit of bait and switch in how these matters are discussed.
>>If someone doesn't like the conditions, they don't have to do it.<<
"That doesn't mean the conditions are fair or just."
And you need to convince the governed why it would be fair and just to change the conditions.
"By that reasoning, if the people of a state voted to deny marriage licenses to black people, the court shouldn't intervene either."
Wrong. DOMA does not deny marriage licenses to anyone, as long as they are unmarried. It does not say, "YOU! Gay man!", or "You! Lesbian! You can't get a marriage license."
"The county clerk can't verify whether or not you are in love."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't talking about love being a legal criterion for a marriage license. I was talking about the reality of gays' and lesbians' existence. The failure of the law to accommodate their real needs and wants equally is a legal and moral injustice.
"So what? Laws about driving have a different effect on the blind. Laws about milk have a different effect on the lactose intolerant. Laws on hunting have a different effect on hunters than they do on PETA members."
But there's no constitutionally protected right to driving, or hunting, or milk.
"There's nothing in the law that talks about sexual orientation."
But it was still a law targeted at gays.
"If gay people take things to the court system in an effort to overturn the voters of California, then they are opening themselves up to hearing "no""
Oh of course. And they'll keep on doing it until they hear "yes". It's only a matter of time.
"When that minority can only have the kind of inclusion they are seeking if the institution is fundamentally changed in its core meaning and purpose, then they are not entitled."
Yes they are, if the institution itself is intrinsically discriminatory. Marriage laws evolved to accommodate the rights of women for similar reasons. Also, a substantial portion of the population begs to differ on what you believe its core meaning and purpose is. You don't get to decide that for everyone.
"You don't have the right to demand the other bus riders remove the wheels of a bus because you are prone to motion sickness."
But unlike the regular bus riders in that analogy, straight couples wouldn't actually be harmed by same-sex marriage.
"The fact is, the CMA does not discriminate against people."
The CA SC begs to differ. See their lengthy discussion of how it violates the equal protection clause.
"First of all, the bride+groom requirement is not arbitrary."
Actually it's gradually becoming seen as increasingly arbitrary, given how the culture is shifting.
"Secondly, if the state ceased to exist tomorrow, I'd still be married."
Not legally, you wouldn't.
"Thirdly, the state could stop issuing ALL licenses tomorrow, because we don't have a right to a state-issued license."
Where on earth did you get THAT idea? If the entire state stopped issuing, say, marriage or gun licenses, that would be very strong grounds for a class action lawsuit against the state, since both marriage and firearm possession are constitutionally protected rights.
"If there was a right to a state-issued license, then the 2nd Amendment would necessitate that everyone could obtain licensing to carry firearms, for example - yet the courts permit certain restrictions on that."
Very bad logic. Just because a right exists doesn't mean that the right is absolute; they can be weighed against compelling governmental interests. By your reasoning, the second amendment doesn't exist.
"It depends on other people doing something for you, and other people have a right to say "no"."
Wrong. A license is not a service. It is a document that grants permission to do an activity, for the purpose of regulating that activity. In some cases, that activity is a constitutionally protected right, and as much as possible cannot be denied.
"And you need to convince the governed why it would be fair and just to change the conditions."
Oh absolutely. We are and we will, it's just a matter of time. Although I do think that convincing a court, rather than a majority of the population, is also a valid recourse to take.
"It does not say, "YOU! Gay man!", or "You! Lesbian! You can't get a marriage license.""
Of course not. But licenses are granted to couples, not individuals. It just says "You two gay men! You can't get a marriage license! Same for you two lesbians! But you straight couple, you're good to go."
ax, your remarks have invoked certain standards of argumentation that would destroy your own complaint and proposed remedy. That is, if you were to faithfully adhere to those same standards when testing the vague and ill-defined notion of "gay marriage".
ReplyDeleteSince you seek to merge marriage with the type of relationship you have in mind, the onus is on you to justify the proposed change. If there is a right to a license for "gay marriage", then, you must identify what "gay marriage" actually is. You can't just point at a license without distinguishing from other stuff the thing being licensed. This is basic lawmaking and common sense.
Take a moment and consider the rules of argumentation that you have been using.
* * *
You are reading into the marriage law something that is not there. But you propose no legal requirement for gayness for those who'd show-up for a license to SSM.
Sexual orientation is not a legal criterion, as you noted yourself, neither for eligibility nor for ineligibility. Likewise gay identity.
Marriage does have a core meaning as per the very long anthropological record. You propose to abolish that core in favor of something else. You reject the universal features of the social institution and so you must imagine that your proposed substitution is superior.
You clearly wish to discriminate between marriage and non-marriage. Right? The license would signify who is and who is not married, but it would also merely be recognition of the social institution that people enter into. Right?
You clearly wish to discriminate between SSM and non-marriage. Right? That is why you propose to merge SSM and marriage, afterall, right?
Now, please differentiation SSM from the wide range of nonmarriage type of relationships and living arrangements. Then, justify proposed lines drawn for eligibility around those differences (if any).
You reject the universal features of marriage so you cannot depend on that. You reject anything that is not a legal requirement, enforced, so you cannot depend on the mere existence of "love" or some gayness factor. If you depend on the relatively new tradition of romance, then, you must reconcile that with the SSM campaign's rejection of tradition as the basis for lawmaking.
If, on the other hand,you'd depend on "needs" of an identity group, then, you will need to provide the means by which 1) the group is recognizable through objective criteria and 2) the needs can be met in no other reasonable way but by discriminating in favor of the identity group.
"ax, your remarks have invoked certain standards of argumentation that would destroy your own complaint and proposed remedy."
ReplyDeleteHow so? Pointing out that my logic is flawed isn't very convincing if you don't actually describe those flaws.
"That is, if you were to faithfully adhere to those same standards when testing the vague and ill-defined notion of "gay marriage"."
What's so vague about it? A lot of gay marriages have already taken place in the US, and they haven't confused anyone. County clerks haven't had any trouble figuring out who to grant marriage licenses to.
"then, you must identify what "gay marriage" actually is."
Since I've been talking about the legal recognition of marriage all along, this is easy. Gay or same-sex marriage is what you get when two people of the same sex apply for and receive a marriage license, get married, and have that marriage acknowledged by the government.
"Marriage does have a core meaning as per the very long anthropological record."
And you believe this core is...?
"You clearly wish to discriminate between marriage and non-marriage. "
Not particularly, no. I just want gay and lesbian couples to be allowed to marry under the law.
"You clearly wish to discriminate between SSM and non-marriage. Right? "
Again, not particularly. I'm not terribly interested in discriminating, or making rigid distinctions between groups of people, or kinds of relationships.
"Now, please differentiation SSM from the wide range of nonmarriage type of relationships and living arrangements."
Huh? It's pretty easy to tell apart SSM from other types of relationships. A SSM is a marriage between two people of the same sex. Siblings are people born to the same parents. Friends are people who like each other, but not romantically. Roommates are people who share an apartment or other living space. Lovers are (generally understood to be) people who love each other and have sex but aren't married. A boyfriend/girlfriend couple (or bf/bf, or gf/gf) are two unmarried people who like and date each other, and have some sort of romantic commitment to each other. Fiances are two people who have promised to marry each other, but haven't yet. It's not difficult.
"Then, justify proposed lines drawn for eligibility around those differences (if any)."
Why should I? I'm not terribly interested in proclaiming who should or shouldn't be allowed to marry, or interpreting my own beliefs on marriage as restrictions that others should be forced to follow.
"If, on the other hand,you'd depend on "needs" of an identity group, then, you will need to provide the means by which 1) the group is recognizable through objective criteria and"
Not interested in playing your weird "define gay marriage" game here, but I should point out that this statement here is logically flawed. The (ideal) solution to discrimination is not to objectively define and recognize the marginalized group, but to make the law neutral with regard to membership in that group.
"2) the needs can be met in no other reasonable way but by discriminating in favor of the identity group."
Also in error. I'm not interested in discriminating in favor of gays and lesbians, I want to end discrimination against them.
ax, you haven't done your homework and your lack of interest is not the good excuse you imagine it to be.
ReplyDeleteax said: Pointing out that my logic is flawed isn't very convincing if you don't actually describe those flaws.
Heh.
My comment invited you to "Take a moment and consider the rules of argumentation that you have been using."
It appeared to me that you have not bothered to use the same rules to test your complaint and your proposed remedy. Your subsequent remarks go some way to confirming that. At the same time, you also managed to illustrate the flaws in your thinking. You did that. I'll just note where.
ax said: What's so vague about it [SSM]?
I asked you to clarify but you have now repeated a vague and ill-defined notion.
Maybe a shrug is really the best you can do.
ax said: two people of the same sex apply for and receive a marriage license, get married, and have that marriage acknowledged by the government.
This, for the record, is your ill-defined and vague notion.
Even at that, it is your implicit concession that you would discriminate between those who would be eligible for the license and those whould be ineligibile.
The lines drawn need to be justified based on what SSM actually is. Otherwise the lines would be arbitrary and that's the main theme of the pro-SSM complaint.
[continued]
ReplyDeleteax said: And you believe this core is...?
It is bad form for you to not have read more of this blogsite before jumping in to criticize the viewpoint of your hosts. The core meaning of marriage has been well-discussed here.
Normally I'd provide a link or repeat the basics, but I think that your flagrant negligence means that you need to do a little legwork yourself.
Search our archives for the phrase and then we can discuss it further.
[Pause for ax to go and come back from the search utility at the top of the homepage.]
[Back from the fridge-break.]
ReplyDeleteYou, ax, say that you do not wish to discriminate between marriage and non-marriage and yet you just referred to the government issuing a license for something.
What are the essentials of that something? If you can't answer, then, you don't know what you are talking about. If can answer, then, let's talk about it.
ax said: I'm not terribly interested in discriminating, or making rigid distinctions between groups of people, or kinds of relationships.
You are fearful of being anything but indiscriminate. Noted. You won't distinguish this or that group. Noted. There are no distinctions that are relevant to the kind of relationship you have in mind. Noted.
Except when you discriminate, rely on identity politics, and make distinctions.
In fact, you talk of marriage, and you talk of SSM, but you say you are not interested in distinguishing either from other stuff. Lack of interest is no excuse.
Your fear is so strong that your remarks in the very same comment include your own readiness to discriminate even as you claimed you would not discriminate.
Clue: not all discrimination is unjust. Society may justly discriminate between marriage and non-marriage. You just showed that you think so too. If not, what is the point about the society issuing a license for something that is indistinguishable?
You say you are not interested -- not interested in your own vague and ill-defined notion.
ax said: I'm not terribly interested in proclaiming who should or shouldn't be allowed to marry...
Ah, but you do proclaim. You do.
Still, your professed lack of interest renders you incompetent to justify a license for the type of relationship you have in mind. You can choose to remain incompetent or you can take an interest in the subject you supposedly came here to discuss. Making vague noises about some ill-defined notion is surely not the best you can do, is it? When you asked how it is vague, you showed at least some sign of interest in the problem of vagueness. Or maybe not. I dunno -- your remarks are so vague.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteax said: The (ideal) solution to discrimination is not to objectively define and recognize the marginalized group, but to make the law neutral with regard to membership in that group.
ReplyDeleteThe group. But what group? You said you would not discuss distinct groups of people.
If you cannot objectively define and recognize the special group (the one that is exempt from your not talking about groups), then, you again show that when you talk of SSM you are talking about something vague and ill-defined.
I'm not interested in discriminating in favor of gays and lesbians, I want to end discrimination against them.
Oh, THAT group. The one you can't bother to objectively define and recognize. The one for whom you make a complaint about suffering some kind of discrimination even as your proposed remedy would discriminate against others in favor of that unrecognized group you have in mind. Your lack of interest is noted.
Okay, your logic is flawless, ax. Pure gold.
Neither eligibilty nor ineligibilty for marriage entails a test for gayness and lesbianism. Nor for straightness, by the way. Unlike you, ax, the marriage law and the social institutin it recognizes are not obsessed with gay identity politics.
Two straight persons of the same sex are ineligible. Perhaps in your mind that is anti-straight discrimination. Some related people are ineligible; some underaged people; some previously married people. Just or unjust? You runaway from justification because you are not interested in justice, but as your interest in the group concedes, you are interested in "just us".
Your viewpoint is not very useful when your lack of interest informs your remarks more than the ruel of law, more than marriage, and more than common sense and logic. And when your interest involves a trump card that is based on the identity group which, among all distinct groups, you'd favor.
Meanwhile, your remedy is pretty useless in regard to your complaint. There is no legal requirement for gayness nor for lesbianism for those who show up for a license to SSM anyplace where it has been imposed. SSM is not definitively gay and lesbian.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that you don't know what marriage actually is. You don't even say, or can't say, what SSM is.
And you lack interest in stipulating the objective criteria for the group you say is marginalized and which you say is being discriminated against. You know, even though you can't be bothered to justify eligibility and ineligibility. It is very self-defeating of you to wear your lack of interest and ignorance like a badge of merit on your chest.
Your bucket of nuts and bolts is pretty pempty, ax. Time to go fill it with something useful, if you can. If not, no problem.
No problem for me, that is. But a big problem for you and your viewpoint.
* * *
You are still invited to consider the standards of argumentation that you use. Test your complaint and test your proposed remedy with those same standards. Don't pretend a lack of interest in your own argumentation, ax.
"This, for the record, is your ill-defined and vague notion."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you find it confusing, but it's crystal clear to me. Thousands of same-sex couples have already gotten married, and nobody else I know of has any problem understanding what that means. If the meaning of SSM is so vague, then why aren't activists and pundits from all over the political spectrum asking for clarification? You seem to be the only one who doesn't get it.
"The lines drawn need to be justified based on what SSM actually is. Otherwise the lines would be arbitrary and that's the main theme of the pro-SSM complaint."
The lines around marriage are already arbitrary. I'd like for the line to be redrawn so that it's less arbitrary.
"Search our archives for the phrase and then we can discuss it further."
Nah. Not interested.
"You, ax, say that you do not wish to discriminate between marriage and non-marriage and yet you just referred to the government issuing a license for something.
What are the essentials of that something?"
Another logical flaw. The gov't doesn't need to recognize the essentials of something to grant a license for it. I'd argue that love is essential to marriage, but the law doesn't require it (and it shouldn't!)
"You are fearful of being anything but indiscriminate. Noted. You won't distinguish this or that group. Noted. There are no distinctions that are relevant to the kind of relationship you have in mind. Noted."
Yes, it's fun to argue by putting words into your opponent's mouth, isn't it?
"Lack of interest is no excuse."
But lack of relevance is. Arguments for legalizing marriage for other types of relationships will rise or fall on their own merits.
"Clue: not all discrimination is unjust."
True. But in this country, there are legal tests that can be applied to see if discrimination is unjust. The CA SC applied those tests, and decided that the traditional marriage statutes WERE unjust.
"Still, your professed lack of interest renders you incompetent to justify a license for the type of relationship you have in mind."
There's already a license for the type of relationship I have in mind. Some of those relationships just aren't allowed to get one.
"The group. But what group?"
ReplyDeleteAny group. For example, they didn't end slavery by defining who the slaves were, and banning their enslavement. They ended it by banning slavery against ALL people.
"If you cannot objectively define and recognize the special group (the one that is exempt from your not talking about groups), then, you again show that when you talk of SSM you are talking about something vague and ill-defined."
The logical flaw here is in believing that the right being denied to the marginalized minority (in this case, the right to marriage) is in substance different from the right already enjoyed by the privileged majority. Hence your failure to understand what gay marriage is. It's like asking what the right of black people to be free is, or what the right of women to vote is. You don't need to objectively define and recognize black people or women, to understand what liberty or suffrage are (although it helps!)
"Oh, THAT group. The one you can't bother to objectively define and recognize."
And naturally you misunderstood my point, which was that the LAW ideally shouldn't be altered to codify distinctions between groups, when addressing discrimination. I'm perfectly happy to point out that current marriage law discriminates against gays and lesbians.
"The one for whom you make a complaint about suffering some kind of discrimination even as your proposed remedy would discriminate against others in favor of that unrecognized group you have in mind."
Yeah, you have a pretty messed up definition of discrimination. It's not the right of opposite-sex couples to marry that discriminates against same-sex couples, but rather their denial of that right. Likewise, it's not the extension of that right to same-sex couples that would discriminate against other ineligible relationships, but the denial of the same right to them in turn. Which would then beg the question of whether that denial to those groups/relationships is also constitutionally unjustified. I never said it was (or wasn't).
"Just or unjust? You runaway from justification because you are not interested in justice, but as your interest in the group concedes, you are interested in "just us"."
No, I avoid that justification because I'm not a supreme court judge. I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm fit to decide who is or isn't fit to be married (other than in the one instance I AM familiar with).
"Meanwhile, your remedy is pretty useless in regard to your complaint.
Funny, because in states where this remedy has been implemented, the complaint was fantastically addressed.
"I'll go out on a limb and suggest that you don't know what marriage actually is. You don't even say, or can't say, what SSM is."
You'd better hold on tight to that limb then. As far as the law is concerned, this is what the right to marriage entails:
"These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society." (In re Marriage Cases)
ax, I did not say I was confused. Your notion is vague and ill-defined. Please do not misrepresent what I said yet a third time. What is at issue is society issuing a license for something you have failed to distinguish from nonmarriage.
ReplyDeleteIf it is so very clear in your mind, then, plainly state the essentials without which SSM would not be SSM.
The lines drawn around marriage are not arbitrary. They are justified by the core meaning of the thing being licensed and recognized and accorded a special status.
A merger with nonmarriage would make the lines arbitrary where they are not currently.
I put no words in your mouth, ax, since your fear of being anything but indiscriminate was illustrated in your own comments. Yet you would make an unprincipled exception to discriminate in favor of gay identity politics.
You repeatedly go back to the pro-SSM court opinion of the CA high court. That opinion (the legal reasoning offered) did not say that the meaning of marriage was irrelevant. It provided its own vague and ill-defined notion. You quoted that part in your latest comment.
And that does not distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. Indeed, it contradicts the pro-SSM justices' reasoning.
I am safe on the limb, ax, that you tried to chop down, because you missed and whacked your own foot.
No, ax, you need to define the group you claim is being discriminated against unjustly. Use objective criteria instead of axiomatic assertions. The reason is to explain the discrimination you percieve.
ReplyDeleteBesides, on this key point you are in disagreement with the pro-SSM court opinion of the CA court. Read it again with greater care. Scanning or going to the SSM campaing's talking points won't suffice. If you are going to rely on the legal reasoning of that case, as you have repeatedly here, then, you might as well do your homework before popping off in Opine's comment sections.
The same-sex category is not definitively gay. You need to be less vague in your complaint. There is no gayness factor in ineligibility to marry; and no straightness factor in eligibility. On the other hand, based on SSM argumentation's rules, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction or same-sex sexual behavior for people who'd show up for a license to SSM. So SSM is not a sexual type of relationship and would not be licensed on that basis. Yet that contradicts your emphasis on gayness.
On the other hand, the marriage law is specific about the group of related people who are ineligible; the group of underaged; the group of previously married; and so forth. These lines are based on what marriage actually is; they are not based on the vague notion of the same-sex category.
Marriage is not SSM. SSM is nonmarriage. Marriage and SSM are substantively different things. See the core meaning of marriage. See the lack of a core meaning for SSM.
[Pause again for ax to go do a simple search in our archives for the answer to his own question.]
The merger would eliminate the distinctive features of marriage and thus undermine, and eventually destroy, the special status of the social institution that society thorugh the law recognizes, protects, and shows preference.
For SSMers to attach SSM to the special status of marriage (the CA court recognized that marital status is a special status) and then to disparage and attack the core meaning that provides the special reason for special status, well, that's just self-defeating. But it is anti-marriage nonetheless.
ax said: "I'm [not] fit to decide who is or isn't fit to be married"
Your express confession of incompetence is noted.
"If it is so very clear in your mind, then, plainly state the essentials without which SSM would not be SSM."
ReplyDeleteSSM is really just marriage, but with two people of the same sex, not the opposite sex. It's really no more simple, or more complicated, than that. Everyone else in the world seems to get this. If you still find this "vague and ill-defined", that's only because marriage itself is vague and ill-defined.
"They are justified by the core meaning of the thing being licensed and recognized and accorded a special status."
Without even knowing what this core meaning is that you speak of, I have a strong suspicion that if I consulted a dictionary or encyclopedia on the definition of marriage, it won't match up with your supposed core meaning. Also, I suspect that if I polled a sample of Americans asking them what is the core meaning of marriage, they would give a vast multitude of answers, very few of them matching up with your core meaning.
"It provided its own vague and ill-defined notion."
Again, it was pretty clear to just about everybody else. Just look at what happened after the decision was passed: thousands and thousands of same-sex couples got legally married, without any confusion as to the procedure, requirements, or benefits. What DIDN'T happen was millions of pundits, activists, politicians, legal scholars, and ordinary Americans asking "Huh? What did they mean by same-sex marriage? What is its core meaning?"
"The reason is to explain the discrimination you percieve."
The discrimination that I perceive? That couples of the same sex that want to marry aren't allowed to, even though opposite sex couples are. The result is that the latter get to enter into a highly celebrated and respected civil institution, while the former are denied entry. It's crystal clear.
"Besides, on this key point you are in disagreement with the pro-SSM court opinion of the CA court."
Nope. Their remedy to discrimination against a minority was exactly as I said it should be: to make the law neutral with respect to membership in that minority. To quote:
"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
It really couldn't be clearer.
SSM is really just marriage, but with two people of the same sex, not the opposite sex.
ReplyDeleteThat is a contradictory sentence to those who understand marriage is being between both genders. Also as a definition it is hopelessly flawed in how it represents itself. I suggest you try again?
It's really no more simple, or more complicated, than that.
Well, its certainly simplistic. Again, you should give it another try.
Everyone else in the world seems to get this.
At best you can say other people accept your statement of contradiction without question. But we are not so willful in suspending disbelief.
But really so absolute as to say "everyone else"? I'll just note that this statement is undermined by your later admission that, "I suspect that if I polled a sample of Americans asking them what is the core meaning of marriage, they would give a vast multitude of answers".
If you still find this "vague and ill-defined", that's only because marriage itself is vague and ill-defined.
Since you are giving your own definition, you realize that statement really only applies to you. Why you have such a vague notion about what marriage is would be interesting to find out. However, it is sufficient to simply show you have no clear understanding of what marriage is -- and that leads to you accepting its neutered counterfeit as the exact same thing.
What DIDN'T happen was millions of pundits, activists, politicians, legal scholars, and ordinary Americans asking "Huh? What did they mean by same-sex marriage? What is its core meaning?"
What did happen was millions of Californians, joined by millions more across the state saying that marriage is about integration of the sexes. Its equality is based on the expectation of one man and one woman. They understood what the core meaning of marriage requires by law, even if all you can muster is waving your hand wildly with the statement, "SSM is really just marriage, but with two people of the same sex".
The discrimination that I perceive? That couples of the same sex that want to marry aren't allowed to [...]
Allowed to what? Exclude a gender from their marriage? Sounds like discrimination. In fact, the all-male or all-female marriage is an advancement to equality like an all-white and all-black school being 'equally recognized as a public school' is an advancement to equality.
I can only accept that either are an advancement for equality if discrimination itself is "equal treatment".
But as we learned, separate is not equal. Segregating sexes, or at least equalizing that segregation with those that choose to be integrating, does not promote marriage equality.
The importance here being that your "discrimination" is on the constitution of the marriage, not the individuals themselves. Just as an all-white school is discriminated against by its constitution of nothing but white kids.
to make the law neutral with respect to membership in that minority
Neutral, specifically in how they segregate. Clever, call Governor Wallace and see if he's still alive, there might yet be a precedent set that will allow him to make his stand once again.
You can't fool me by saying a segregative behavior like "homosexual" (meaning exclusive to one gender) is really just an individual. Honestly, kidding about white segregationists aside they did try to to coin their actions as an individual trait. They mentioned how it was inherent to their nature to segregate, that they were meant to be segregated and the state needed to follow their identity mandate.
Just something to think about.
"There is no gayness factor in ineligibility to marry; and no straightness factor in eligibility. On the other hand, based on SSM argumentation's rules, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction or same-sex sexual behavior for people who'd show up for a license to SSM. So SSM is not a sexual type of relationship and would not be licensed on that basis. Yet that contradicts your emphasis on gayness."
ReplyDeleteI invite you to carefully ponder two quotations from the CA SC decision:
"The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics. It is important both analytically and from the standpoint of fairness to plaintiffs’ argument that we recognize they are not seeking to create a new constitutional right — the right to “same-sex marriage” — or to change, modify, or (as some have suggested) “deinstitutionalize” the existing institution of marriage. Instead, plaintiffs contend that, properly interpreted, the state constitutional right to marry affords same-sex couples the same rights and benefits — accompanied by the same mutual responsibilities and obligations — as this constitutional right affords to opposite-sex couples. For this reason, in evaluating the constitutional issue before us, we consider it appropriate to direct our focus to the meaning and substance of the constitutional right to marry, and to avoid the potentially misleading implications inherent in analyzing the issue in terms of “same-sex marriage.”"
"In our view, the statutory provisions restricting marriage to a man and a woman cannot be understood as having merely a disparate impact on gay persons, but instead properly must be viewed as directly classifying and prescribing distinct treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the marriage statutes, realistically viewed, operate clearly and directly to impose different treatment on gay individuals because of their sexual orientation. By definition, gay individuals are persons who are sexually attracted to the same sex and thus, if inclined to enter into a marriage relationship, would choose to marry a person of their own sex or gender. A statute that limits marriage to a union of persons of opposite sexes, thereby placing marriage the reach of couples of the same sex, unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation."
"On the other hand, the marriage law is specific about the group of related people who are ineligible; the group of underaged; the group of previously married; and so forth. These lines are based on what marriage actually is"
No, these lines are based on what (it was believed that) marriage ISN'T. The law is, rightly, amazingly silent on what marriage is, since they mostly leave that to people to decide for themselves.
"Marriage is not SSM. SSM is nonmarriage. Marriage and SSM are substantively different things."
Yeah yeah yeah. You could repeat this all you like, it doesn't become any more true to the people who have actually experienced a same-sex marriage, or seen one up close. There are already countless same-sex married couples in the world, and they and their friends and families beg to differ with your assertion.
"The merger would eliminate the distinctive features of marriage and thus undermine, and eventually destroy, the special status of the social institution that society thorugh the law recognizes, protects, and shows preference."
Yeah well, we'll see in a generation or so. I've heard SSM opponents predict dire consequences for SSM many times, but for some reason they never get down to specifics. In any case, the current evidence suggests otherwise.
"Your express confession of incompetence is noted."
LOL, I predicted that you would say this! :)
"That is a contradictory sentence to those who understand marriage is being between both genders."
ReplyDeleteContradictory, perhaps, but not vague or ill-defined. One can understand something and not agree with it.
"Well, its certainly simplistic. Again, you should give it another try."
Nah. I'm quite satisfied with that definition, thanks.
"However, it is sufficient to simply show you have no clear understanding of what marriage is -- and that leads to you accepting its neutered counterfeit as the exact same thing."
Actually, it's because I understand marriage to be a complex and multifaceted institution with many legal, cultural, and religious meanings that I have a clearer understanding of it than those who reduce it to a "core meaning."
"What did happen was millions of Californians, joined by millions more across the state saying that marriage is about integration of the sexes."
And millions said otherwise. For a supposed "core meaning" of marriage, it's not one that enjoys a lot of unanimity.
"Exclude a gender from their marriage? Sounds like discrimination."
LOL! What a cartoonish definition of discrimination! Here's a clue: when people discuss discrimination in the context of constitutional rights, they're generally talking about what the law and government are doing, not private actions among private citizens.
"like an all-white and all-black school being 'equally recognized as a public school' is an advancement to equality."
Actually, I don't think anybody had a problem with all-white and all-black schools both being recognized as schools. It was the segregation that bothered people.
"But as we learned, separate is not equal. Segregating sexes, or at least equalizing that segregation with those that choose to be integrating, does not promote marriage equality."
Wow. It's really, really weird that you think of marriage as some form of segregation. So if people of the same race are allowed to marry, that's a form of racial segregation? So we should ban this then, because as you said, separate is not equal!
"Neutral, specifically in how they segregate."
Wow. Just... wow. You actually believe that letting people pair off and choose their spouses as they see fit is analogous to laws that require racial segregation in education and housing?
"Honestly, kidding about white segregationists aside they did try to to coin their actions as an individual trait. They mentioned how it was inherent to their nature to segregate, that they were meant to be segregated and the state needed to follow their identity mandate."
The state DOES follow their identity mandate, in so far as it can be balanced against other constitutional concerns (such as the rights of other citizens). White segregationists have always been free to restrict their PRIVATE associations to other white people. For example, Loving v. Virginia didn't force white people to marry black people.
Nice job, ax. Regarding that Steve Chapman challenge, I have certainly noy been silent about what same-sex marriage does. Quoting the comment I left at the Chicago Tribune site: Allowing same-sex marriage means either allowing same-sex procreation (using stem cell derived modified gametes, for example), or else stripping procreation rights from all married couples. Marriage has always meant societal approval and official consent for the couple to produce offspring together, there have never been marriages that have also been prohibited from conceiving children together, from their own genes. Same-sex couples should be like siblings, in that they should be prohibited from attempting to procreate together, because it would be unethical and unwise. It is far better to preserve everyone's equal conception rights and preserve natural conception by a man and a woman as the only way people are created."
ReplyDeleteThe California court never considered whether the state can prohibit same-sex procreation. Of course it can, we don't have to allow it because the court thinks there are "gay people" who would be deprived of an equal right if they aren't allowed. Considering same-sex procreation changes everything.
"Allowing same-sex marriage means either allowing same-sex procreation (using stem cell derived modified gametes, for example), or else stripping procreation rights from all married couples. Marriage has always meant societal approval and official consent for the couple to produce offspring together, there have never been marriages that have also been prohibited from conceiving children together, from their own genes. Same-sex couples should be like siblings, in that they should be prohibited from attempting to procreate together, because it would be unethical and unwise. It is far better to preserve everyone's equal conception rights and preserve natural conception by a man and a woman as the only way people are created.""
ReplyDeleteDude, you're crazy.
But hey, if two men or two women want to conceive a child together, I'm fine with that.
I'm not fine with that. Not only would it put the child at extreme and unnecessary risk, it would require a huge infrastructure of government regulation and investment in genetic research, and threaten everyone's natural reproductive rights to use their unmodified genes to have children without labs intervening on the parent-child relationship. It would usher us into an age where everyone had to be genetically engineered, and create a huge entitlement for poor people to use modified genes to keep up with the rich.
ReplyDeleteYou have to justify why it is so necessary to develop and legalize same-sex procreation. Can you point to any great need for same-sex procreation?
Er, paranoid much?
ReplyDeleteI'm not fine with two men or two women attempting to conceive a child together. There's nothing to be paranoid about, it simply should not be allowed. I list just a few of many reasons why it should not be allowed, if that's too many for you, just ignore some.
ReplyDeleteFor you ax, SSM has no societal significance that merits a special status. In your mind at least marriage is just as meaningless.
ReplyDeleteThat sums up your comments here. You have said little else.
It is wonderful, ax, that you predicted that your confessed incompetence would be noticed. Prior to that confession, your comments demonstrated your incompetence; and your subsequent comments reinforced it.
ReplyDeleteEach citation of the pro-SSM court opinion (to which you defer) supports my points and undermines your own. Endgaming is a profound flaw in SSM argumentation of those as incompetent as yourself and of those as willful to abuse judicial review as the pro-
SSM justices on the CA high court. Either way, the contradictions are blatant and I realize that SSMers choose to just brazen it out. That is unprincipled and it undermines your complaint and your proposed remedy.
At first you did not think your notion to be vague and ill-defined. Then you embraced the flaw as a definitive feature of your viewpoint.
You said you are uninterested in distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage. Then you brandished the statutory ineligibilty lines as distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage.
That's just the tip of the long list of contradictions that have piled up in your comments.
You really ought to learn about the core meaning instead of speculating as you do.
[Pause for ax to visit the search utility at the top of the homepage and to find the core meaning of the social institution that people enter when they marry.]
Try to do better, ax, and be a little more informed.
And ax, I forgot to list any of the benefits that would come from banning genetic engineering and choosing the path of unmodified male and female conception and equal conception rights. Some people being forced to use modified genes is not equal conception rights, and we should reject that whole notion that some people must do that. Everyone should have a right to conceive with their unmodified gametes, which means with someone of the opposite sex, that they are eligible to marry, and they should legally marry first.
ReplyDeleteThere will be huge benefits of resolving the marriage debate and affirming everyone's equality and equal conception rights and the right to use our unmodified genes to procreate with the spouse of our choice. The benefits of choosing the natural-conception-equal-procreation-rights path will far outweigh the benefits of choosing the genetic engineering path, even if we assume that path achieves its goals of wiping out most genetic diseases and increasing our lifespan, abilities, intelligence and beauty. They are such starkly different paths, and whichever path we choose should determine whether we have same-sex marriage or not. We should not let the same-sex marriage question choose which path we go down, but it will, unless we wake up and address the underlying question first.
"For you ax, SSM has no societal significance that merits a special status. In your mind at least marriage is just as meaningless."
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you would say this, when I approvingly quoted a portion of the CA SC decision that indicates the explicit opposite.
"It is wonderful, ax, that you predicted that your confessed incompetence would be noticed. Prior to that confession, your comments demonstrated your incompetence; and your subsequent comments reinforced it."
That's ok, your opinion of my competence doesn't really matter to me anyway.
"At first you did not think your notion to be vague and ill-defined. Then you embraced the flaw as a definitive feature of your viewpoint.
You said you are uninterested in distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage. Then you brandished the statutory ineligibilty lines as distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage."
I'm sorry that you're unable to see any nuance and subtlety in the arguments of your opponents, hammering their statements instead into rigid and simplistic meanings, or perceiving them to be contradictory, according to your own preconceived notions. In much the same manner that you choose to propound on the meaning of marriage, clearly. But this is your failing, and not mine.
Let me try once more: The world does not find the definition of same-sex marriage to be vague or ill-defined, because by its very term it unambiguously references an existing concept (marriage) with only a simple alteration in structure. But underneath this layer of simplicity lies a wealth of complexity, because marriage itself is a complex institution with many meanings. Ask any number of random people on the street "Define same sex marriage", and I guarantee that nearly all will answer something like "Marriage between two people of the same sex." Ask those same random people "Define marriage", and I expect that lawyers will answer differently than priests, as will single people compared to married people compared to divorced people, and even husbands might answer differently than their wives. Ask them "What is the core meaning of marriage?" and most will probably make explicit reference to romantic love (and I know that's not what you believe the core of marriage to be). Whether or not beliefs on the core meaning of traditional marriage can be mapped to unions of the same sex will depend on whether or not those beliefs rely on the joining of both sexes. I already know that yours does, but many others in the world disagree.
And yes, I am uninterested in distinguishing between marriage and non-marriage. But to point out that the law makes such distinctions is hardly an expression of interest, much less agreement, with such distinctions.
Something needs to be said regarding the basic premise by which you're so desperately trying to frame this debate:
ReplyDelete"You really ought to learn about the core meaning instead of speculating as you do.
[Pause for ax to visit the search utility at the top of the homepage and to find the core meaning of the social institution that people enter when they marry.]
Try to do better, ax, and be a little more informed."
That you could live in a country, a world even, where there are now thousands if not millions of same-sex couples that are happily married in the eyes of the law, of their loved ones, and of their church, and then manage to claim in all seriousness that that these marriages are not marriages;
That you seem completely unable to grasp the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the complex dimensions of human nature that can make marriage such a sacred and celebrated institution cannot EVER, in a planet of nearly 7 billion unique individuals, exist in a union of two human beings of the same sex;
That in spite of this you could then claim to have certain awareness of some absolute "core meaning" of marriage that must be imposed on everyone by force of law, irrespective of any advance in scientific knowledge, of any shift in cultural values, of any evolution in moral reasoning, of the staggering diversity in purpose and form that marriage has exhibited throughout history and across cultures, irrespective even of the stark reality of living, breathing people whose experiences and needs have shaped deeply held beliefs that run counter to yours;
Can only be evidence that, to put it kindly, with regard to this issue you are beyond the reach of reason or empathy. I am not and have never been married myself, so perhaps you are correct that I do not truly know the "core meaning" of marriage, if such a thing even exists. But I do know that, if I wish to increase my understanding of this thing that we call marriage, you're pretty much the last person on Earth from whom I would ever seek such guidance.
John Howard,
ReplyDeleteFearing that a tiny minority of a tiny minority of people choosing to engage in same-sex procreation will inevitably lead to the genetic engineering of all Americans is pretty much a textbook example of paranoia.
It really looks like Ax is getting wound around the axle here. Just a few examples...
ReplyDeleteIn coming up with a definition of marriage, I pointed out it was contradictory and problematic in how it was simply self-referencing. He was, and is still sloughing to say, it is what it is -- whatever it is.
Me : >> "That is a contradictory sentence to those who understand marriage is being between both genders."
Ax : > "Contradictory, perhaps, but not vague or ill-defined. One can understand something and not agree with it."
It has a definition, he concludes. But it is far to nuanced or ethereal for it to be put into words. But we all understand it anyways, right?
Me : >> "Well, its certainly simplistic. Again, you should give it another try."
Ax : > "Nah. I'm quite satisfied with that definition, thanks."
There you have it, vagueness is not a flaw, its a feature. The question is, what purpose does it serve that he's so satisfied with it?
Ax's gaffe on the definition of ban is important enough that I'll post more on it in the front page. Suffice to say, calling a ban where government actively prosecuted people taking part in a particular activity a ban was to him "cartoonish". Now watch as he tries to marginalize another definition...
Me: >> "Exclude a gender from their marriage? Sounds like discrimination."
Ax: > "LOL! What a cartoonish definition of discrimination! Here's a clue: when people discuss discrimination in the context of constitutional rights, they're generally talking about what the law and government are doing, not private actions among private citizens."
So, according to Ax's clue, it isn't discrimination in the "generally talking" point sense unless the government is doing it. Otherwise, its cartoonish to call it discrimination.
Lets watch a few more examples of his dancing around discrimination. It gets even better. I provide an analogy of a schools...
Me: >> "like an all-white and all-black school being 'equally recognized as a public school' is an advancement to equality."
Ax: > "Actually, I don't think anybody had a problem with all-white and all-black schools both being recognized as schools. It was the segregation that bothered people."
Ba-dum dum, chiiiing!
Wound around the axle -- continued...
ReplyDeleteMe: >> "But as we learned, separate is not equal. Segregating sexes, or at least equalizing that segregation with those that choose to be integrating, does not promote marriage equality."
Ax : "Wow. It's really, really weird that you think of marriage as some form of segregation."
Of course this shows Ax's attention span. I had just said (and the record shows he quoted) that marriage was about integration of the genders :) But to continue with that paragraph...
Ax: > "So if people of the same race are allowed to marry, that's a form of racial segregation? So we should ban this then, because as you said, separate is not equal!"
It seems Ax doesn't realize the difference between race and gender. If everyone married a different race, soon we wouldn't have races at all. But that is not true for genders. You mix genders, and you still get one of each gender. If you don't mix genders, you don't get any offspring at all.
So while requiring people to integrate races is a way to get rid of races, and requiring them to segregate is also unfair, I like the system where we let everyone choose if they integrate races or not.
I think we should (and do) let people choose if they integrate sexes or not in their personal relationships. But same-gender relationships and gender integrated relationships have very specific attention they need which cannot be served by any single institution. We can address everyone's needs -- just not all with the same program. There is no one-size fits all.
Of course it would only start with a small number of couples, and most couples would continue to have children naturally, with their own genes. But as those groups diverged, and the technology improved, we'd see that the rich group using genetic engineering was avoiding diseases and improving their children's abilities, while the poor group was continuing to have children with cystic fibrosis, average intelligence, less perfect features, etc. And if the rich stop getting diseases, they won't care about looking for a cure for them, it will become a very sharp divide. Clearly we will need to make genetic modification available to everyone, and not just as an option, since it's the children that we'd think we are protecting when we force couples to screen their embryos or modifiy their genes. There are already ethicists insisting that mandatory genetic screening is ethically justified, of course they will say the same about genetic modification.
ReplyDeleteIt's not paranoia at all to see what is going on out there, to see the research and the ideologies like Postgenderism and Transhumanism all converging. As an answer in a debate, it is not acceptable, it shows you have no legitimate answer to my objections to same-sex marriage or same-sex equality in general.
And even without the expansion into mandatory genetic modification for the masses of people, even if if was only done one time, for one same-sex couple, it would still be way unethical and should be prohibited, and it would still keep us from benefiting from a ban. There would be so many benefits to a ban, starting with how it would enable us to resolve the SSM debate and get equal protections to thousands of same-sex couples that need them.
ReplyDelete"But it is far to nuanced or ethereal for it to be put into words."
ReplyDeleteI HAVE put it into words. Or at least, quoted the CA SC decision that did so.
"There you have it, vagueness is not a flaw, its a feature."
Of marriage. Yes.
"So, according to Ax's clue, it isn't discrimination in the "generally talking" point sense unless the government is doing it. Otherwise, its cartoonish to call it discrimination."
Well, of course, if the topic being discussed is what is permissible under the constitution. Or do you seriously believe that same-sex marriage can be banned on the basis of enforcing the equal protection clause?
"Of course this shows Ax's attention span. I had just said (and the record shows he quoted) that marriage was about integration of the genders :)"
And from context, it's obvious that I was referring to your description of same-sex marriage.
"It seems Ax doesn't realize the difference between race and gender. If everyone married a different race, soon we wouldn't have races at all. But that is not true for genders. You mix genders, and you still get one of each gender. If you don't mix genders, you don't get any offspring at all."
Oh, I see. So the reason we permit the discrimination of same-race marriage is to preserve the races, as if preserving the races were something the government should have any interest in doing (as opposed to, say, protecting the rights of everyone to marry as they see fit.) But because genders have no need to be preserved, it's ok to ban their so-called "segregation", and force the genders to be integrated?
"So while requiring people to integrate races is a way to get rid of races, and requiring them to segregate is also unfair, I like the system where we let everyone choose if they integrate races or not."
You just don't like the system where we let everyone choose if they integrate sexes or not?
"I think we should (and do) let people choose if they integrate sexes or not in their personal relationships."
Oh, so you DO like the system where people can integrate sexes or not. You just want the law to treat the ones that don't differently from the ones that do. And here I thought separate is not equal.
"But same-gender relationships and gender integrated relationships have very specific attention they need which cannot be served by any single institution. We can address everyone's needs -- just not all with the same program. There is no one-size fits all."
Funny, because in states like MA, the one-size fits all institution works just fine. Whereas in states without SSM, the same-gender relationships are clamoring for their needs to be fully met.
"I HAVE put it into words. Or at least, quoted the CA SC decision that did so."
ReplyDeleteWell, you did quote the CA SC decision that was later overturned by Prop 8, which was later upheld by the CA SC. But even your quote didn't put anything of the like into words.
Your choice of tailor means nothing when you are wearing the emperor's new clothes.
[...] if the topic being discussed is what is permissible under the constitution.
Then clearly the expectation of integration of the genders is within the constitution, as Prop 8 and subsiquent SCoCA rulings have upheld.
[...] I was referring to your description of same-sex marriage.
I give you full marks for trying, but even that is wrong. I don't think it is even true for you unless, to you, same-sex marriage means you have to marry the same gender.
[...] as if preserving the races were something the government should have any interest in doing [...]
I know that to you, everything that doesn't neuter marriage isn't a government concern. I've seen you belittle concerns about marriage equality (the expectation of equality between each gender in each marriage), and John Howards concern with the needlessly acrobatic and dangerous steps that are required to do same-sex reproduction.
Just add this to the humanitarian concerns you throw under the bus of GLBT concern.
You just want the law to treat the ones that don't differently from the ones that do. And here I thought separate is not equal.
One size does not fit all. You pretend it does, but equality doesn't mean giving everyone extra large white shirts to wear.
We can address the needs of both, but not with the same program.
"Well, you did quote the CA SC decision that was later overturned by Prop 8, which was later upheld by the CA SC."
ReplyDeleteSo you acknowledge that I said something. Whether or not it was overturned is irrelevant to the fact that I said it.
"But even your quote didn't put anything of the like into words."
Read it again. See if there's any reference to sex or gender.
"Then clearly the expectation of integration of the genders is within the constitution, as Prop 8 and subsiquent SCoCA rulings have upheld."
LOL! Prop 8 didn't uphold the constitution, it CHANGED it (that's why they call it an amendment). Also, there's still the federal constitution.
"I give you full marks for trying, but even that is wrong. I don't think it is even true for you unless, to you, same-sex marriage means you have to marry the same gender."
Exactly. I DON'T think of same-sex marriage as a form of constitutionally impermissible segregation.
"I've seen you belittle concerns about marriage equality (the expectation of equality between each gender in each marriage)"
Yes. I do belittle concerns about the expectation of equality between each gender in each marriage.
"One size does not fit all. You pretend it does, but equality doesn't mean giving everyone extra large white shirts to wear."
But to continue with this tortured analogy, equality implies that everyone gets a shirt, no? And they should all be of the same brand, or fabric, or quality? It wouldn't be fair to give most people a designer shirt, and the rest a cheap knock-off.
"We can address the needs of both, but not with the same program."
The difference between us is that I actually listen to what real people are saying they need, instead of dictating for them what they need.
"Of course it would only start with a small number of couples, and most couples would continue to have children naturally, with their own genes. But as those groups diverged, and the technology improved, we'd see that the rich group using genetic engineering was avoiding diseases and improving their children's abilities, while the poor group was continuing to have children with cystic fibrosis, average intelligence, less perfect features, etc."
ReplyDeleteYeah, same-sex procreation and genetic engineering are different things.
In many ways, yes, but the both would be prohibited by a law that prohibited creating children by any means other than joining the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man, as is the law in Missouri and was recommended by the President's Council on Bioethics.
ReplyDeleteAnd they are also related in that once we allow one, we can't justify not allowing the other, even though they are quite different in purpose. One is intended to reduce risk and make babies healthier than the couple might have without intervention, the other greatly increases risk and creates a baby likely to have many genetic problems. They would seem to be at odds, but they are allies against natural procreation rights.
"And they are also related in that once we allow one, we can't justify not allowing the other, even though they are quite different in purpose."
ReplyDeleteIf they're different in both purpose and effect, then of course you could justify allowing one and not the other.
I don't really see how we could justify not allowing a couple to fix their child's genome, or enhance it, or do whatever they want, if we allow labs to do the far more dangerous and radical and unnecessary genetic modifications for same-sex procreation. It is far more likely that we'd allow the first and ban the second. In animals, genetic engineering is routinely done, but same-sex procreation has only been successful one time (if one survivor out of 10 births and 450 embryos counts as a "success").
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, we need to ban both, as the egg and sperm law would do.
"I don't really see how we could justify not allowing a couple to fix their child's genome, or enhance it, or do whatever they want, if we allow labs to do the far more dangerous and radical and unnecessary genetic modifications for same-sex procreation."
ReplyDeleteYou're judging one activity based on its medical risk, and the other on its intended effect. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Anyway, since when has Congress refrained from passing inconsistent and hypocritical laws?
They're both bad and should be prohibited by an egg and sperm law that preserves natural conception and equal conception rights. I get that you were objecting to me listing some bad effects that you felt didn't apply to same-sex procreation, which I disagree with, but there is enough wrong with allowing same-sex procreation even if I don't include "opening the door to other forms of genetic engineering" in my argument. You still need to justify why it is needed, why it is worth the cost and risks to develop and perform and eventually fund and regulate.
ReplyDelete"but there is enough wrong with allowing same-sex procreation even if I don't include "opening the door to other forms of genetic engineering" in my argument"
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you said this, because it means we can now leave genetic engineering out of the argument entirely. Let's never bring it up again.
"You still need to justify why it is needed, why it is worth the cost and risks to develop and perform and eventually fund and regulate."
I never said it was needed, I said I had no problem with it. You're the one who wants to ban it, so you have to justify why the ban is necessary.
So you acknowledge that I said something. [...] Read it again. See if there's any reference to sex or gender.
ReplyDeleteWow, that would not be helpful. You said the quote would put the definition of marriage into words. Perhaps your attempt to reboot expectations shows you are unable to see such meaning in what you quoted either?
LOL! Prop 8 didn't uphold the constitution, it CHANGED it (that's why they call it an amendment). Also, there's still the federal constitution.
Ammendments alter the constitution, but remember the whole law suit over Prop 8 was asking the courts opinion on whether it ammended the constitution or changed the meaning of the constitution. The difference being that amendments clarify the constution, and if you redraw the constitution you need a much more involved process. The SC that you quoted ruled that Prop 8 did not change the meaning of the constitution -- their previous opinions notwithstanding.
It means their previous opinion that there was a violation of the constitution was over-ruled by the people. Their opinion turned into just the opinion of 4 in the debate among the people. That kind of democracy is one of the more beautiful aspects of our country and state.
I DON'T think of same-sex marriage as a form of constitutionally impermissible segregation.
Its sufficient to show that marriage expecting integration is not segregationist or even violation of equal protection (in fact it affirms it).
I'm not power hungry enough to use the constitution to beat this one way or the other. Are you?
Yes. I do belittle concerns about the expectation of equality between each gender in each marriage.
You said enough right there, but only added insult to injury by then turning around and proclaiming the exact opposite...
The difference between us is that I actually listen to what real people are saying they need, instead of dictating for them what they need.
"You said the quote would put the definition of marriage into words. Perhaps your attempt to reboot expectations shows you are unable to see such meaning in what you quoted either?"
ReplyDeleteNo reboot, you just fail to see the logic in my argument. Here's the relevant quote:
"These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage." (In re Marriage Cases)
From a constitutional standpoint, this is the right to marriage guaranteed under the constitution (or it was, before prop 8). No reference to gender or the integration thereof, which means it applied to same-sex marriage as well. Which means that my description of SSM as simply being marriage (as described above) between two people of the same sex holds. Clear as day.
"Ammendments alter the constitution, but remember the whole law suit over Prop 8 was asking the courts opinion on whether it ammended the constitution or changed the meaning of the constitution. The difference being that amendments clarify the constution, and if you redraw the constitution you need a much more involved process. The SC that you quoted ruled that Prop 8 did not change the meaning of the constitution -- their previous opinions notwithstanding."
Pfft, of course not. The issue was whether Prop 8 counted as an amendment or a revision. Both qualify as changes to the constitution, the difference is in scope.
"It means their previous opinion that there was a violation of the constitution was over-ruled by the people."
Of course not. The people didn't overrule the court's decision, they changed the constitution so that one specific aspect of the decision no longer applied.
"Its sufficient to show that marriage expecting integration is not segregationist or even violation of equal protection (in fact it affirms it)."
So you now concede that same-sex marriage is NOT a form of illegal discrimination?
In any case, you HAVEN'T shown that marriage expecting integration didn't violate equal protection rights. Even Strauss v. Horton emphasized that equal protection rights for same-sex couples remain:
""Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."
"I'm not power hungry enough to use the constitution to beat this one way or the other. Are you?"
Of course I'm willing to use the constitution to decide this issue. As are you, if you supported Prop 8. And how this can in any way be characterized as power-hungry I have no idea.
"You said enough right there, but only added insult to injury by then turning around and proclaiming the exact opposite..."
Running out of coherent arguments, that you now have to pretend that two consistent statements are contradictory? I'm concerned with what people say they themselves need, not what they claim other people to need as well. If YOU need for YOUR marriage to exhibit equality between each gender, I'm all for that. If you need for EVERYONE ELSE'S marriage to be the same, well, boo f-ing hoo.
Okay, we get it. Ax, you think that the meaning of marriage is spelled out by the bit you cited from the pro-SSM court opinion.
ReplyDeleteWithout that opinion, there would have been no licenses issued for SSM in CA. Your coments conceded this point.
So you would rely, utterly, on the reasoning offered in that court opinion. But your comments revealed you to be ignorant of the reasoning in it.
So you really rely on the outcome, not the reasoning.
* * *
ax, you freely confessed your own incompetence. I noted both the signs of your incompetence and your confession.
We agreed on your lack of interest and your lack of competence on these matters.
By the way, the core meaning of marriage is not merely an assertion of mine. Indeed, if you bothered to learn about it you might better understand the actual disagreement.
[Pause for ax to consider yet another opportunity to inform himself beyond his own speculations.]
You referred to romance, ax, for which there is no legal requirement. And so you pointed to the significance of the tradition of romance. And you pointed to the lack of a legal requirement for love; and that points to your disowning the special pro-SSM rule that says if there is no legal requirement then it is not an essential of marriage.
Also, you talked about 'most people' and invested decisive significance in the opinion of the majority.
In CA most people disagreed with the merger of SSM (as subset of nonmarriage) with marriage. More today than on the day of the vote.
Likewise, most people who have voted on state marriage measures. Likewise, most people in the country. And most state courts, too. And most legislatures and state executives. And most marriage statutes, too.
And most people in the world, both past and present.
If you say that SSM is just the marriage of the same sex, then, you have only shifted to the task of distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage.
It remains incumbent upon you to plainly state the essentials by which marriage, is marriage, and is not other stuff.
Your citing the CA court's failure on this point shows that you rely on a vague and ill-defined notion.
So instead of clarity you shifted to a promise of complexity and nuance. And did not deliver on that either.
The waste of pixels in your comments is piling up, ax.
Well, hold on, it is still an argument against allowing same-sex procreation that it would almost certainly open the door to all forms of genetic monkey business, and it is still true that the best way to preserve natural conception rights is with an egg and sperm law like Missouri's or the PCBE's that would ban both same-sex procreation and designer babies. All I have said is that even if we found a way to permanently ban designer baby GM that allowed for same-sex conception GM, there would still be arguments against same-sex conception.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm happy to argue for the moment as if that were the case, as an exercise in case it plays out that way. I have by no means conceded that the "it would open the door" argument is not valid, it certainly is, and would remain so even if we attempted to keep the door closed somehow. It'd be opened just enough to be forced open, it's better to shut it all the way and lock it.
But here goes: It would be a waste of energy and have an enormous carbon footprint, it would divert money and resources and researchers away from real medicine that is needed to prevent and cure suffering. It would be emotionally inhumane to deprive someone of the common origins shared with the rest of humanity, of having a mother and a father. Not having one would disconnect the person from the natural world and society, and make the person feel manufactured, degrading life not only for the child but all people would feel degraded by someone else being created in such a unique and obviously manufactured, lab-created manner. And having two fathers or two mothers would gut all the meaning of father and mother, the whole force of someone being a father or mother is that they are the only father or mother, having another one totally negates the responsibility that defines the role. (I'm not talking about raising children by two same-sex caretakers, obviously people are raised in as many different situations as there are people, I'm talking here only about same-sex progenitors.)
Also, being the product of same-sex conception would be a very public thing, unlike IVF children who often never know they were created in a petri dish (and if they do know, at least they still feel they are the natural child of a man and a woman). It would require the child be subjected to lifelong tests and scrutiny, he would never feel normal and would always wonder if he was missing something. It is thus very cruel to the offspring. The child would know that his parents were not concerned with his health, and he was only created out of hubris and reckless conceit and selfishness.
And the benefits of preserving natural conception and equality and preserving sex and gender are so great, to toss them away in order to pretend that same-sex couples have equal rights is ridiculous.
And I haven't mentioned how it would probably become an entitlement if we allow same-sex conception, especially if it is allowed on the reasoning of the Cali court, that "gay people" require it because they can't be expected to have children any other way. That has "entitlement" written all over it, and it would be a very expensive one. The court's reasoning is very wrong, though, and we need to instead affirm that everyone has an equal right to be straight and also an equal right to marry and procreate with their spouse using their unmodified genes. Allowing same-sex procreation would compel people into feeling they had to use it, it would re-inforce the idea that some people (gay people) had no right to procreate naturally. It would thus threaten everyone's right to procreate naturally, using unmodified gametes, but oh, I'm not supposed to be using that argument...
OK, maybe now I can sleep. I tried to go to bed and was going to write this in the morning, but it kept me up thinking.
"It would be a waste of energy and have an enormous carbon footprint"
ReplyDeleteHow do you figure?
"it would divert money and resources and researchers away from real medicine that is needed to prevent and cure suffering. "
If there are more important concerns, then the NIH will award grants for research on those. No need for a ban.
"It would be emotionally inhumane to deprive someone of the common origins shared with the rest of humanity, of having a mother and a father. Not having one would disconnect the person from the natural world and society, and make the person feel manufactured, degrading life not only for the child but all people would feel degraded by someone else being created in such a unique and obviously manufactured, lab-created manner."
The same could be said for IVF, surrogate pregnancy, etc.
"And having two fathers or two mothers would gut all the meaning of father and mother, the whole force of someone being a father or mother is that they are the only father or mother, having another one totally negates the responsibility that defines the role."
So if a person is ever born to two mothers, then the responsibility of all other mothers in the world will be negated? Their motherhood will suddenly lose meaning?
"(I'm not talking about raising children by two same-sex caretakers, obviously people are raised in as many different situations as there are people, I'm talking here only about same-sex progenitors.)"
Too late, you've undermined your own point. If people can have two fathers non-genetically, I think they can handle having two fathers genetically without the world falling apart.
"It would require the child be subjected to lifelong tests and scrutiny, he would never feel normal and would always wonder if he was missing something. It is thus very cruel to the offspring."
IVF probably started out like this too.
"The child would know that his parents were not concerned with his health, and he was only created out of hubris and reckless conceit and selfishness."
Wow. Exaggeration much?
"And the benefits of preserving natural conception and equality and preserving sex and gender are so great"
Yeah, same-sex procreation isn't going to stop anyone from procreating the usual way.
"especially if it is allowed on the reasoning of the Cali court, that "gay people" require it because they can't be expected to have children any other way."
The CA decision had nothing to do with same-sex procreation.
"that has "entitlement" written all over it, and it would be a very expensive one."
Gay couples that want children are a very, very, very tiny minority; I don't think it will be that expensive.
"Allowing same-sex procreation would compel people into feeling they had to use it, it would re-inforce the idea that some people (gay people) had no right to procreate naturally. It would thus threaten everyone's right to procreate naturally,"
Again, paranoid much?
"Same-sex conception" or "same-sex procreation" is human manufacture. I understand and share your concern that conflating the it with human procreation would lead to great injustice.
ReplyDeleteSSM argumentation depends on many such conflations. Best to keep human procreation very much seperated from human manufacture, both in concept and as well as potential practice (one which rightfully merits an outright ban from experimentation onward). It is misleading to refer to the manufacture of human beings as a form of conception and procreation. SSMers love to mislead through the appropriation of labels that mean something significant so that they can rhetorically attach the label to stuff that would mean something very different and very contradictory of the label. It is intellectually dishonest game that they play and so human procreation ought to be referred to as distinct from the manufacture of human beings.
[Pause again for ax to learn the core meaning of marriage.]
ReplyDeleteI figure it would be a waste of energy and have an enormous carbon footprint because it would require many many researchers working many many hours at many many labs driving many many miles to work, running very expensive tests over and over, etc etc. And then the energy required for each procedure will be a lot more than zero, which is how much energy not doing same-sex procreation uses. Eliminating an area of research and eliminating a procedure in the labs will reduce energy use, no question. It's not trivial, we are in a crisis and need to prioritize and ration our energy use. Every new procedure should receive the same scrutiny, and if it is unnecessary, and we can ban it and stop it from becoming an energy hog, we should.
ReplyDeleteIf there are more important concerns, then the NIH will award grants for research on those. No need for a ban.
I don't know if the NIH would. I think they are rather corruptible, and award grants based on what researchers want to do. They already probably fund lots of research that has no medical benefit, and potential costs. Without a ban, my money would fund something totally unnecessary, trying to "cure" something that is not a disease and causes no suffering. Plus, they aren't the only source of funding, a ban would stop private funds and state funds and university funds from being wasted on same-sex procreation, and allow those funds to be used on medical care.
The same could be said for IVF, surrogate pregnancy, etc.
Yes, lots of this is true of IVF as well. You see how IVF has "opened the door" for other things? The same supposed "argument" will be used by the people that want to do genetic engineering, they will say "the same is true of same-sex conception", as if same-sex conception was A-OK with everyone all along. IVF is not uncontroversial either, ax. I think it should be banned, it's a waste of energy and makes people think of babies as products to be ordered, and has become a huge cost to everyone's health insurance. But, it is still joining a man and a woman's unmodified egg and sperm, at least. It sure has opened the door to use of modified and donor eggs and sperm though, just like worryworts predicted.
So if a person is ever born to two mothers, then the responsibility of all other mothers in the world will be negated? Their motherhood will suddenly lose meaning?
No, I mean each mother will lose the meaning and feeling of what it means to be a mother. It would be very cruel to them, too. Real mothers, who are the only mothers of their children, will still know what it is like to be the only mother. But now that I think of it, if the two-mother mothers try to normalize their feelings onto other mothers the way same-sex couples generally do, then yes, they will disrespect and deny what other real mothers feel and try to stop them from feeling it.
Too late, you've undermined your own point. If people can have two fathers non-genetically, I think they can handle having two fathers genetically without the world falling apart.
No, it doesn't undermine my point. Being a father is all about being the only father, and if there are two fathers, then being a father loses its meaning. The same is true of two men acting as caretakers, but it would be way more pronounced, since two caretaker males generally only pretend to both be fathers, they know that only one is, and the child knows that only one is (or perhaps that their father is in China somewhere, which is surely a fond thought that they cling to for strength). As the product of a lab that made them without input from a mother, from two men, the child would not be able to wonder about its real father, and no father would be able to feel like a father is supposed to feel. This would indeed affect the culture and reduce the responsibilities of fathers. It would do it an order of magnitude more than two men raising a child together does.
Postgenderism is not a minor change. Allowing it to capture the imagination of the culture means changing the attitudes about sex and gender for everyone, not just letting a few people do some unethical experiments. The benefits of rejecting Postgenderism will be huge, it will be as though everyone were given a new lease on life and new respect and meaning.
ReplyDeleteIVF probably started out like this too.
Sort of, but there really haven't been any long term studies of IVF children. Since they combine the same genes as non-IVF, the assumption has been that they will do fine once they are born. The truth is there are lots of diseases and maladies that afflict IVF children at a much much higher rate, but the industry brushes this off, and parents are happy to have a child, so they brush it off too.
"The child would know that his parents were not concerned with his health, and he was only created out of hubris and reckless conceit and selfishness."
Wow. Exaggeration much?
No, how could that be an exaggeration? Creating a child from two men or two women is not a loving thing to do to a child, and to be created in such an unloving and uncaring and selfish manner ought to disqualify the donors from being its parents. They should go to jail and the child should be cared for by someone who would care for its welfare and health.
"And the benefits of preserving natural conception and equality and preserving sex and gender are so great"
Yeah, same-sex procreation isn't going to stop anyone from procreating the usual way.
No, I mean that the benefits of banning use of modified genes and of preserving the right of every marriage to procreate with its own genes, and every person to marry, will be great. It won't be the same after the ban, we will have affirmed everyone's equality and changed humanity's course, away from a dark dystopia of everyone being created from labs, and toward a human future, where we are responsible and caring for each other instead of drearily giving up and letting technology do everything, including make our children. For that to happen, we really have to ban all genetic modification, including same-sex conception, we can't achieve that if we don't reject Postgenderism.
The CA decision had nothing to do with same-sex procreation.
ReplyDeleteIt did if we accept its view of "gay people" as not being able to do what "straight people" do, and who have a right to procreate with someone of the other sex, since everyone has a right to procreate with someone they love, etc...
"that has "entitlement" written all over it, and it would be a very expensive one."
Gay couples that want children are a very, very, very tiny minority; I don't think it will be that expensive.
Right now they are a tiny minority, but if it becomes safe, millions of gay couples are going to want to try to finally have children together. This will be very insulting to all the existing children of same-sex couples, of course, but they won't care. It will be ridiculously expensive. It already has cost us way too much money. IVF is already way too expensive, we should be figuring out how to reduce the number of IVFs, not increase it. (The way to reduce IVF is to encourage marriage and abstinence until marriage)
"Allowing same-sex procreation would compel people into feeling they had to use it, it would re-inforce the idea that some people (gay people) had no right to procreate naturally. It would thus threaten everyone's right to procreate naturally,"
Again, paranoid much?
Not enough, ax. We really need to preserve natural conception and prohibit use of modified gametes. A few couples that won't be allowed to try to create motherless or fatherless children is NOT a good reason to threaten everyone's conception rights. Just tell them no, they should adopt, or be foster parents, or just not have children. Why is it so important to let them try such a crazy experiment?
Chairm, thank you for adding your voice and agreeing that attempting to create children for two people of the same sex "rightfully merits an outright ban". Yes it does.
ReplyDeleteIt is really the first order of business, and the main difference we have with Ax and everyone else that is demanding equal rights for same-sex couples. Once we enact a ban, it will be trivial to preserve marriage. It won't be hard to enact a ban, either, once we start raising awareness and making it the core of our argument.
Btw, the core of marriage is the right to conceive together. That needs to be preserved, it is being lost.
"because it would require many many researchers working many many hours at many many labs driving many many miles to work, running very expensive tests over and over, etc etc."
ReplyDeleteIf those researchers didn't work on same-sex procreation, they would be working on something else. Net carbon footprint change: zero.
"They already probably fund lots of research that has no medical benefit, and potential costs."
So we must have the spare money, then.
"Yes, lots of this is true of IVF as well."
And yet the world has gotten along fine with the existence of IVF. All that worry for nothing.
"No, I mean each mother will lose the meaning and feeling of what it means to be a mother."
Oh those poor mothers, to know that they share their child with another mother, by their own choice. Better that they not have a child at all. That will let them know the meaning and feeling of motherhood!
"Being a father is all about being the only father, and if there are two fathers, then being a father loses its meaning."
Yes. I know that my dad derives all the satisfaction of fatherhood from his exclusive status, and not from anything silly like his love for his children.
"Since they combine the same genes as non-IVF, the assumption has bee such an unloving and uncaring and selfish mann that they will do fine once they are born."
Same-sex procreation combines the same genes as well.
"and to be created inner ought to disqualify the donors from being its parents."
Yeah, shame on them, choosing to bring a child into the world that they could share a genetic connection with, to love and cherish and raise as their own.
"away from a dark dystopia of everyone being created from labs, and toward a human future, where we are responsible and caring for each other instead of drearily giving up and letting technology do everything"
Dude, you watch too many sci-fi movies.
"its view of "gay people" as not being able to do what "straight people" do"
At least read the decision before you make up things like this.
"but if it becomes safe,"
So it COULD become safe?
"This will be very insulting to all the existing children of same-sex couples, of course, but they won't care."
Yes, I know that MY self-esteem as a child rested entirely on the reproductive choices of remote strangers.
"(The way to reduce IVF is to encourage marriage and abstinence until marriage)"
I think you're confusing IVF and abortion.
"Not enough, ax."
You're right. I should be very, very afraid that one day, human beings will stop having sex.
If those researchers didn't work on same-sex procreation, they would be working on something else. Net carbon footprint change: zero.
ReplyDeleteThe existing researchers would hopefully switch to working on cures and prevention, or perhaps change jobs to something more environmentally sustainable, or perhaps quit their jobs altogether. And there wouldn't be a need to hire new researchers and make new labs to meet the new demand for same-sex procreation. Net carbon footprint change, a lot. It would take lots of energy to do same-sex procreation. It would cost a lot, and it would come from taxpayers and insurance premiums, not just from the couple.
So we must have the spare money, then.
No we have bad decision makers in the NIH.
And yet the world has gotten along fine with the existence of IVF. All that worry for nothing.
Are you kidding? There is a huge problem with our health care system, and lots of it can be attributed to paying for IVF and genetic research. It's costing us billions. And it is leading to people saying that genetically modifying people's genes and creating children from artificial gametes is no big deal, not much different from IVF. Those are both plainly obvious, they can't be denied.
Oh those poor mothers, to know that they share their child with another mother, by their own choice. Better that they not have a child at all. That will let them know the meaning and feeling of motherhood!
Yeah, it's sad, and for their child too. Those women could have a child naturally, with a man. That would let them know the meaning and feeling of motherhood. Or, not. Not everyone gets to feel it, but everyone should have a right to, no one should be prohibited from marrying and being a mother.
Yes. I know that my dad derives all the satisfaction of fatherhood from his exclusive status, and not from anything silly like his love for his children.
Of fatherhood, yes, he does. There is lots of satisfaction to being a loving guardian, too.
Same-sex procreation combines the same genes as well.
Oh, no, it doesn't. It requires modifying the genetic imprinting. There is more to "genes" than the genetic sequence, there is also a whole field called "epigenetics" that studies the role of methylation, of how male and female genes are imprinted differently and come together to make a new genome. To do same-sex procreation, the genes of one partner have to be modified, they have to be demethylated and re-methylated in some sort of mysterious hormone or something, they don't really know. That's why it has been so hard to accomplish.
Yeah, shame on them, choosing to bring a child into the world that they could share a genetic connection with, to love and cherish and raise as their own.
Right. Love makes a family, they don't need a shared genetic connection to cherish a child. It is insulting to adoptive families and blended families and foster families. And to expose a child to such risks indicates unfitness to parent. I think the same is true of hetero couples that pursue IVF, but they are seduced by the clinics who assure them that it is safe (and they make mothers promise to abort if the fetus isn't developing right), and they are protected by privacy laws, which wouldn't apply to same-sex couples, since their sex is public.
Dude, you watch too many sci-fi movies.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just me. All those sci-fi movies work because the dystopias are all too possible. If we ruled out eugenics and preserved natural conception rights, we wouldn't be so numbed by sci-fi movies.
"its view of "gay people" as not being able to do what "straight people" do"
At least read the decision before you make up things like this.
It's been a while since I read it, I can't remember if they assumed a class of "gay people". I do remember it as being a reasonable decision that made perfect sense, but only when assuming that same-sex couples had equal rights. I disagree with that premise.
"but if it becomes safe,"
So it COULD become safe?
Oh, sure. It could become safer.
Yes, I know that MY self-esteem as a child rested entirely on the reproductive choices of remote strangers.
You should read some books about children of divorce. They don't all cope too well when their mommy has a new baby with another father, and the parents seem to love that one more, because it is a shared connection. It would be even worse if the parents obviously pursued radical technologies and spared no expense in order to do create a child they could share a connection to.
"(The way to reduce IVF is to encourage marriage and abstinence until marriage)"
I think you're confusing IVF and abortion.
No, IVF is usually caused by infertility, and infertility is usually caused by premarital sex and delaying marriage. Maybe not "usually", but who knows? We do know that infertility can result from stds and abortions and that abstinence protects fertility.
You're right. I should be very, very afraid that one day, human beings will stop having sex.
You still haven't explained why it's worth the risks, why it is more important to allow same-sex couples to try to have offspring together. Where is the need? If it only cost 50 cents, you still haven't justified it.
"But your comments revealed you to be ignorant of the reasoning in it."
ReplyDeleteIronic coming from someone who hasn't displayed an ounce of familiarity with it.
"ax, you freely confessed your own incompetence. I noted both the signs of your incompetence and your confession."
If you really believed this you wouldn't still be arguing with me.
"By the way, the core meaning of marriage is not merely an assertion of mine."
I'm sure you have historical or anthropological reasons for believing in your core meaning. I don't find arguments from tradition to be particularly convincing.
"your disowning the special pro-SSM rule that says if there is no legal requirement then it is not an essential of marriage."
From a strictly legal standpoint, this is actually correct. If there's no legal requirement for something (such as the ability to produce a child), then by definition it isn't an essential legal feature of marriage. Of course, law and culture will have different perspectives on the essentials of marriage.
"Also, you talked about 'most people' and invested decisive significance in the opinion of the majority."
To point out the discrepancy between your belief on its "core meaning" and popular opinion. Of course, you wouldn't be happy until everyone thinks the same way as you.
"In CA most people disagreed with the merger of SSM (as subset of nonmarriage) with marriage. More today than on the day of the vote."
Do YOU really want to go down this line of reasoning? If someday a majority of Californians accept same-sex marriage, will you then concede that the core meaning of marriage can encompass such relationships?
"And most people in the world, both past and present."
More argument from tradition.
"If you say that SSM is just the marriage of the same sex, then, you have only shifted to the task of distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage.
It remains incumbent upon you to plainly state the essentials by which marriage, is marriage, and is not other stuff."
What a rigid mode of reasoning, that automatically precludes change in the institution of marriage. I'd rather keep a more open mind. Unlike you, I don't feel threatened by new and radical ways of thinking. Also, how sad that you mistake what is universal or unique to marriage with what is essential to it.
"The waste of pixels in your comments is piling up, ax."
Stop reading them then.
"The existing researchers would hopefully switch to working on cures and prevention, or perhaps change jobs to something more environmentally sustainable, or perhaps quit their jobs altogether. And there wouldn't be a need to hire new researchers and make new labs to meet the new demand for same-sex procreation."
ReplyDelete"No we have bad decision makers in the NIH."
"and lots of it can be attributed to paying for IVF and genetic research. It's costing us billions."
You really love to speculate wildly and make stuff up, don't you? It's impressive how you interpret the effects of same-sex procreation in the worst possible way, and the effects of its ban in the best possible way.
"Of fatherhood, yes, he does."
LOL, you're really not afraid of saying the most absurd things, are you?
"It requires modifying the genetic imprinting."
Yes, I'm quite familiar with genetic imprinting. But the term "gene" commonly (though not universally) refers to the base pair sequences that code for proteins, irrespective of their methylation. No modification necessary there.
"I think the same is true of hetero couples that pursue IVF"
And yet I'm not aware of a single adopted child that feels bad because other childless couples chose IVF instead.
"All those sci-fi movies work because the dystopias are all too possible."
I suggest you work at being a little less credulous.
"but only when assuming that same-sex couples had equal rights. I disagree with that premise."
Yeah, see, there's this thing called the equal protection clause that begs to differ.
"Oh, sure. It could become safer."
And you already know for a fact that it can never be truly safe, don't you?
"They don't all cope too well when their mommy has a new baby with another father, and the parents seem to love that one more, because it is a shared connection."
So should we ban step-parents from procreating too? You know, for the sake of the children?
"and infertility is usually caused by premarital sex and delaying marriage."
LOL, you really believe this? And do you also believe masturbation makes people blind?
"If it only cost 50 cents, you still haven't justified it."
I don't need to. It's a free society, the reproductive choices of other people are no business of mine.
It's impressive how you interpret the effects of same-sex procreation in the worst possible way, and the effects of its ban in the best possible way.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think would be the effects of a ban on creating people by ways other than joining a man and a woman's unmodified sperm and egg? Feel free to give your worst case scenario. And the effects of SSP I cite are risks, they are possible, indeed probable, effects. Of course we should consider the worst possible effects.
No modification necessary there.
If no modification was necessary, it would be easy to do, they'd have done it more than one time after 20 years of trying (Kaguya may have been a fluke, or a mistake, perhaps not really from two mothers at all). Of course modification is necessary. With IVF, they take an egg straight from an ovary, and they take a sperm straight from the testes, and they combine them in vitro. This is very different, they have to create new "artificial" gametes containing a genetic payload that is different what would come from the gonads.
And yet I'm not aware of a single adopted child that feels bad because other childless couples chose IVF instead.
I'm sure there are. Just say the words "real parent" to an adoptive family and tell me if they feel good. That's what IVF parents are saying to adoptive families. And, consider the kids that still need to be adopted. I'm sure they are real happy with rich families spending tens of thousands of dollars to have their own kids.
Yeah, see, there's this thing called the equal protection clause that begs to differ.
That doesn't protect couples. For example, a brother and sister do not have equal rights to an unrelated man and woman. A father doesn't have a right to marry his adult daughter. It is still equal protection, though, because those restrictions apply to everyone equally.
And you already know for a fact that it can never be truly safe, don't you?
Safety is relative. It is also irrelevant, the right to procreate is not dependent on a safety test and should not be.
So should we ban step-parents from procreating too? You know, for the sake of the children?
No, all marriages have a right to procreate, it is just something step children have to deal with. But they shouldn't have to deal with same-sex couples doing it, because there is no right to do same-sex procreation or same-sex marriage.
LOL, you really believe this?
Millions of women are rendered infertile every year by HPV, chlamydia, etc. They wind up having to use IVF to have children.
I don't need to. It's a free society, the reproductive choices of other people are no business of mine.
You don't need to because it happens to not be prohibited. That's only because no one thought to prohibit it before. It really should be prohibited ASAP, and you should have to justify allowing it.
And the reproductive choices of people really DO have an effect on society, even if you think they don't. You're just wrong.
"What do you think would be the effects of a ban on creating people by ways other than joining a man and a woman's unmodified sperm and egg?"
ReplyDeleteGovernment intrusion into the private reproductive choices of couples, for one thing.
"If no modification was necessary, it would be easy to do, they'd have done it more than one time after 20 years of trying"
Just because the re-imprinting process is difficult doesn't mean genetic modification (changing base pair sequences) is necessary.
"I'm sure there are. Just say the words "real parent" to an adoptive family and tell me if they feel good."
Yeah, we should just ban all behavior that could potentially make other people feel bad.
"That doesn't protect couples."
Actually, it does. Otherwise interracial marriages could be banned.
"It is also irrelevant, the right to procreate is not dependent on a safety test and should not be."
Great! This throws all your arguments on medical risk out the window, then.
"No, all marriages have a right to procreate, it is just something step children have to deal with."
Yeah, that's convincing. So adopted children are so precious, we have to ban the reproductive choices of complete strangers to avoid hurting their feelings. But step-children are no big deal, we can let their very step-parents have children that will offend them.
"Millions of women are rendered infertile every year by HPV, chlamydia, etc. They wind up having to use IVF to have children. "
Dude, there are all sorts of safe sex methods now. Condoms for example, ever heard of 'em?
"You don't need to because it happens to not be prohibited. That's only because no one thought to prohibit it before. It really should be prohibited ASAP, and you should have to justify allowing it."
You're the one proposing the ban, so you have the burden of proof.
"And the reproductive choices of people really DO have an effect on society, even if you think they don't."
Oh, I'm sure they do, but that doesn't justify gov't intrusion into people's private lives.
Government intrusion into the private reproductive choices of couples, for one thing.
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah, to the extent that it prohibited creating people from modified genes, which is the whole point of it. Government already intrudes into the private reproductive choices of siblings, mothers and sons, etc, and that's a good thing.
I thought you approved of government prohibiting creating people from modified genes. What's going on, are you admitting you think people should be allowed to do designer babies now? Before you were telling me that we could prohibit genetic engineering (altering base pairs) even if we allow same-sex conception, now you are demonstrating that what I was saying was true - you believe that government can't restrict any couple's "private reproductive choice," and you if you can't stop one kind of choice, you can't stop any other kinds of choice.
Uh oh...bedtime
"you believe that government can't restrict any couple's "private reproductive choice,""
ReplyDeleteYou're almost right, I DON'T believe it can - unless it had a constitutionally legitimate reason to do so.
Just because the re-imprinting process is difficult doesn't mean genetic modification (changing base pair sequences) is necessary.
ReplyDeleteChanging base pairs isn't necessary, but modification is. It requires modification or engineering (which means 'change') of the genetic contribution from one of the partners. Even if a process is discovered that works, it still should not be allowed, for reasons I've given, and reasons I haven't given. We should preserve natura conception, including the requirement of both sexes in procreation, and reject Postgenderism and Transhumanism.
Actually, it does. Otherwise interracial marriages could be banned.
They were banned, remember? But race is an "insupportable basis" on which to restrict marriage, as the ban was only intended to maintain the system of white supremacy. There are still "supportable basis" to restrict certain relationships from marriage that were not struck down by Loving, such as siblings, fathers and daughters, and people of the same sex. Restrictions based on genetic tests would also be insupportable, as they are intrusive into the private medical history of individuals.
Great! This throws all your arguments on medical risk out the window, then.
Not so fast! Risk doesn't matter if a couple has the right to procreate, based on their relationship type. But risk can be a factor in determining what relationship types have the right to procreate together. If a relationship type (siblings, same-sex, etc) is believed to be too risky to ethically procreate, that can be one of the supportable basis on which to prohibit that type of relationship from marrying and procreating.
So adopted children are so precious, we have to ban the reproductive choices of complete strangers to avoid hurting their feelings. But step-children are no big deal, we can let their very step-parents have children that will offend them.
ReplyDeleteThe right of everyone to marry (and remarry) and of marriages to procreate overrides upsetting existing children. However, going to great technological lengths to have children, willfully exposing them to great risks in the process, is unethical and ought to be offensive to everyone, not just the couples existing adopted children or step children. I brought that up because considering it from that angle helps to see how offensive it is.
Dude, there are all sorts of safe sex methods now.
And yet, millions become infertile every year. Other factors also contribute to infertility, such as environmental toxins, drugs, etc. We should be putting more effort into reducing infertility, addressing all causes, to reduce IVF use. We should not be increasing infertility and IVF use, as the industry and eugenicists seem bent on.
You're the one proposing the ban, so you have the burden of proof.
It's easy to show that same-sex procreation is unsafe right now and should be banned right now, along with all other forms of designer baby GE, simply as a matter of prudence to give society time to consider all the ramifications before some lab goes ahead and does it. Just look at the Kaguya numbers again. Then, you'll have the burden of proof. And you are the one demanding equal rights for same-sex couples, explain why same-sex couples need procreation rights.
Oh, I'm sure they do, but that doesn't justify gov't intrusion into people's private lives.
It is worth preserving everyone's equality and equal procreation rights. If we start equating my right to have a child with a woman to my right to have a child with a man, it severely undermines my right to have a child with a woman, with my own unmodified genes.
And if we allow use of modified genes, we will almost certainly have to regulate it and intrude into people's private lives. Keeping it natural is the best way to keep the government out of reproduction.
"It requires modification or engineering (which means 'change') of the genetic contribution from one of the partners."
ReplyDeleteBut done correctly, there's no change in phenotype. The whole point of genetic engineering is to change the phenotype. So in substance, the two methods are entirely different.
"But race is an "insupportable basis" on which to restrict marriage, as the ban was only intended to maintain the system of white supremacy."
So are gender and sexual orientation.
"Risk doesn't matter if a couple has the right to procreate, based on their relationship type. But risk can be a factor in determining what relationship types have the right to procreate together."
So if they have a right to procreate, risk doesn't matter. But if they don't have a right to procreate, you can use risk to justify that. Wow, you're so consistent.
"The right of everyone to marry (and remarry) and of marriages to procreate overrides upsetting existing children."
Great! Then we should let same-sex couples marry and procreate, even if that will upset adopted children!
"We should be putting more effort into reducing infertility, addressing all causes, to reduce IVF use."
So we should just stop all efforts at curing diseases, and just focus on preventing them?
"It's easy to show that same-sex procreation is unsafe right now"
So are all forms of experimental drugs and surgery. We should just ban those too, right?
"If we start equating my right to have a child with a woman to my right to have a child with a man, it severely undermines my right to have a child with a woman, with my own unmodified genes."
Yeah, because once gays and lesbians start having children, you won't be allowed to have children anymore.
But done correctly, there's no change in phenotype. The whole point of genetic engineering is to change the phenotype. So in substance, the two methods are entirely different.
ReplyDeleteThere are two different forms and purposes of genetic engineering. The other point of genetic engineering is to enable same-sex procreation. Not only are the methods different, they are in conflict. Advocates of each kind of GE reject the other kind, they both reject a ban on modified gametes, as I advocate to stop both of them and preserve equal conception rights and equality itself.
So are gender and sexual orientation.
No, race and sexual orientation are insupportable, indeed the whole categorization is insupportable, but sex is a supportable basis because both sexes are required to procreate ethically. Procreating with someone of the same sex requires modification, no modification is required no matter what orientation or race someone is.
So if they have a right to procreate, risk doesn't matter. But if they don't have a right to procreate, you can use risk to justify that. Wow, you're so consistent.
It's about the relationship type versus the individuals. Risk matters at a macro level when looking at generic, public, legal relationships, as do other public health policy issues, but it doesn't matter regarding individual couples. It's very important that we keep it that way, and don't move to a individual risk assessment that undermines everyone's reproductive rights.
Great! Then we should let same-sex couples marry and procreate, even if that will upset adopted children!
It ranks like this:
Right to marry and procreate with unmodified gametes > Feelings of adopted children > Right to use modified gametes in order to create someone biologically related with someone of the same sex. There simply isn't a right to use modified gametes to procreate or a right to procreate with someone of the same sex. It's never even been contemplated, let alone done, ever in history, so there's no basis on which to claim it as a human right.
So we should just stop all efforts at curing diseases, and just focus on preventing them?
No, but we should shift resources in that direction, toward prevention and toward caring for sick people and about the same toward looking for cures, and away from "eradicating" diseases through PGD or GE. We fund it pretty much opposite the way it should be.
So are all forms of experimental drugs and surgery. We should just ban those too, right?
No, those are treatments for diseases and suffering and are performed on the person who desires to take the risk. Same-sex procreation does not cure any disease or relieve any suffering, and it puts all the risk on another person, treating that person as a means to the parents desires rather than as an end in themselves. Yes, all conception puts the risk on the child, and yes it happens as a result of the parents desiring happiness, but again, the right to marry and procreate is a basic human right that overrides the lack of consent by the person being created, but creating a person intentionally with modified gametes from two progenitors of the same sex is NOT a right and the claim that it is is overruled by the right to be conceived naturally and not be subject to experiments in conception.
Yeah, because once gays and lesbians start having children, you won't be allowed to have children anymore.
Well, I won't have a special right to use unmodified gametes anymore, because my right to procreate would be satisfied and fulfilled by the use of modified gametes. Sure, if we have wide-open anything goes procreation rights for using modified gametes, despite public opinion against it and doctors warnings about it, then I'd probably continue to be allowed to defy public opinion and use my own lousy gametes, unmodified, for a while. But same-sex procreation will likely be regulated and have safety standards and that's what I'd have equal rights as.
The irony, ax, is that reflexively you objected to my referring to your notion as vague. You then switched to confused, which I had not said, and demonstrated your own confusion by citing a bit from the CA court that illustrated the notion is indeed vague. Then you said that vagueness is not objectionable.
ReplyDeleteSo it turns out that in what you found objectionable was my noting the vaguness. The notion is vague. You have agreed with my original observation. That's not an argument, ax, it is like watching a Monty Python sketch.
Likewise with your incompetence.
Since you have yet to present an actual argument, it is odd that you think yourself arguing at all. You say stuff. Contradictions galore. Snide attitude and a willful ignorance, sure, but an argument? No, nothing there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey ax, let's agree that we have a fundamental disagreement about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to attempt to create offspring together, and consider what it means in terms of the marriage debate.
ReplyDeleteYou hold your position that gender is an insupportable basis to prohibit procreation, and that we can't prohibit same-sex conception, for the same reasons you are for same-sex marriage, right? You seem to agree with me that the two issues have to be decided the same way, that is, it would be unacceptable in principle to allow one but prohibit the other.
Well, don't you think that it is silly, then, to consider the marriage question with such a long protracted public debate, without also considering the procreation question? Shouldn't we have a public discussion about procreation, and then however we decide that, decide the marriage question? In the meantime, we could agree to the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, which would prohibit trying same-sex conception unless and until the public, through Congress, decides to allow same-sex couples to procreate together using their own (re-imprinted, re-packaged, stem-cell derived) gametes. That would benefit couples right now, and not really harm any couples. Yes, it is government intrusion into creation of people, but only to stop people from doing some things that have never been done before, until we've thought about it some. Hopefully we'll make it permanent, so we can reap the rewards of the debate being over and people feeling secure about the future, but at least it should be agreed that we need to discuss it first, as a nation.
In your comments, ax, you emphasized the tradition of romance, but now you say that tradition is unconvincing. You added an emphasis on what "most people" might believe or say or think. Then you ran away from both emphases.
ReplyDeleteYou introduced romance and "most people" into the exchange here. You tied them together. It was your thinking, not mine, that was offered to explain your own vague SSM notion.
Now you would attribute to me (reliance on tradition and on romance) what you earlier promised was decisive.
Perhaps the argument you imagine you have been participating in is really between you and yourself. That might account for your heap of contradictions.
You have offered nothing on which to stand, nothing to defend, and nothing that could possibly test your notion.
That would explain why your comments have demonstrated a fear of being anything but indiscriminate.
Next you might admit that this fear is a feature, not a flaw, in your viewpoint.
So you think vague is best, at least when it is your vagueness' and you think that tradition is meaningful, at least when you rely upon it; and you think that "most people" decide the matter, at least if the decision is in your favor; and you think that there is no core meaning for marriage because it must be rendered as meaningless as SSM; and you think that failing to distinguish SSM from other stuff is not indicative of meaninglessness so you say that eligibility is arbitrary. And on and on. Always vague. Always indiscriminate. Always eliding the actual disagreement.
I have not remotely suggested that change in the social institution is "preclued" in my viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteNor did I say a thing about personally feeling threatened by so-called "new and radical ways of thinking".
If your misrepresentations are not another display of incompetence, then, it this is a pattern of running away from what is actually said. Or maybe it is just an inadvertent misreading on your part. You can figure that out and make the correction so you can then represent accurately what has been said.
In what way are the universal features of a social institution not essential to distinguishing it from other stuff?
You haven't bothered to say. Still, you do strongly suggest that what really matters is "new and radical thinking". That is what sold you on this vague notion, it would appear.
Okay, so with all of this vagueness, and new-radical-goodiness, you have taken on the burden of justifying eligibility for SSM.
You blurted out that the lines of eligibilty are arbitrary. So it seems you tried to pre-emptively shirk the burden your own comments have placed upon yourself.
SSM is not distinguishable from other nonmarital living arrangements and types of relationships. So it is in the nonmarriage category.
Don't bother emphasizing gayness if you aren't prepared to endorse the imposition of a legal requirement for gayness. Most of the nonmarriage category is not sexualized -- and not 'gay' by a long shot. So on what basis would the lines be drawn to include some but to exclude the rest?
Ah, your confessed incompetence has pre-cluded your contribution on this business of actually arguing in favor of your own certitude. Let the judiciary decide. Why? Because they are "most people". Oh, waitaminute. Most of the nonmarriage category would be excluded for some unstated reason. Favoritism perhaps? Arbitrary thinking, maybe?
You have continued to waste pixels.
And, as one of your hosts here at Opine, I will continue to note for our readership how high your pile of waste is growing.
Also, I invite you to do better. It is lousy form to disregard the answer to a question you asked at the getgo. That answer can easily be found in the archives.
The universal features are radical in the sense that they go to the root of the social institution that exists today. These features have been renewed with each generation. Reaffirmed in most states in these United States of America.
New and radical thinking is something that you said was convincing and not to be feared. Try the core meaning of marriage on for size.
These universals are new and radical in another sense, too, at least to you since you have yet to learn about the core meaning of marriage. That you have so far avoided a simple step to becoming more informed is an unfortunate sign of arrogance and closed-mindedness and bad form on your part. Ironic, given your lastest comment.
I think ax understands the core meaning of marriage quite well, Chairm. He is not shy about what he is asking for. He knows that being approved to create offspring together is the core meaning of marriage.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI think Ax has handed you your hat and set you out the door on your ideas.
But perhaps you do understand the ethereal notion of marriage that Ax keeps dancing around. If so, then you describe it and see if Ax agrees.
Otherwise I'm happy to let you keep getting hammered by Ax until even you give up on your failed platform. And when you are finally tired, return to the conversation Ax and I were having.
(actually I have to amend that comment to say that Ax has committed some very grievous errors in his discussion with John Howard, but Mr Howard has been too stuck on his failed ideas to realize them).
ReplyDeleteDo go on, On Lawn.
ReplyDeleteI've at least brought something concrete to the discussion, and exposed his radical beliefs. Society will have to have the same debate ax and I are having, and hopefully it will choose prudence, at least. The way society decides to go on same-sex conception is the it will go and should go on marriage.
Are you saying you agree with ax that same-sex conception should and must be legal? Why would you allow a same-sex couple to conceive offspring together, but not allow them to marry each other? That combination was ruled unconstitutional in Zablocki, because it makes no sense.
Well, now I'm confused. Was it you or Ax that brought something concrete to the table?
ReplyDeleteAnd just what is that core meaning of marriage that he understands so well (but can't put it into words)?
Was he talking about his belief that same-sex conception should be legal before I brought it up? I don't think so. Demanding same-sex conception, or banning it, is concrete as an issue.
ReplyDeleteThe core meaning he understands so well is the bundle of rights and responsibilities and obligations that are given when the state officially pronounces their right to conceive children with each other. He knows that without that, it doesn't have the core meaning.
"There are two different forms and purposes of genetic engineering. ... Not only are the methods different, they are in conflict."
ReplyDeleteSo Congress COULD ban one and not the other! Great, then we could just forget all the talk about GE and just focus on same-sex procreation.
"because both sexes are required to procreate ethically."
Define "ethically" then. How did you figure out that same-sex procreation is unethical? Because according to you, that's what it all boils down to, isn't it?
"Risk matters at a macro level when looking at generic, public, legal relationships, as do other public health policy issues, but it doesn't matter regarding individual couples."
Then we SHOULD regulate procreation with marriages (which are generic, public, legal relationships) based on risk! But if an individual same-sex couple wants to procreate, we have to let them! That, or your argument is a nonsensical contrivance.
"Right to marry and procreate with unmodified gametes > Feelings of adopted children > Right to use modified gametes in order to create someone biologically related with someone of the same sex."
Yes, what a delightfully convenient and wholly unsupported contrivance that proves your point.
"and away from "eradicating" diseases through PGD or GE. We fund it pretty much opposite the way it should be."
Yes, because every hospital I've ever been to does practically nothing but PGD and GE. Lousy doctors, why don't they ever recommend healthy lifestyles, or cure people, or save lives? If only we had a massive pharmaceutical industry that poured millions into drugs and vaccines!
"and the claim that it is is overruled by the right to be conceived naturally and not be subject to experiments in conception."
So ALL assisted reproductive technology should be banned? Or just the ones you're so afraid of?
"Well, I won't have a special right to use unmodified gametes anymore, because my right to procreate would be satisfied and fulfilled by the use of modified gametes."
Yeah. I know MY special right to free speech using my own voice is completely demolished, because other people have the right to communicate in new and inventive ways using the internet. Now the government can ban all speech except Twitter, since it recognizes that a 14-year-old girl's right to speak using Twitter is equal to MY right to speak with my voice. Damn Twitter, it's so unethical!
"You hold your position that gender is an insupportable basis to prohibit procreation"
ReplyDeleteWell you certainly haven't given reasonable support for that basis.
"You seem to agree with me that the two issues have to be decided the same way, that is, it would be unacceptable in principle to allow one but prohibit the other."
I've never said or implied any such thing. Opposite-sex couples can conceive without getting married, why not same-sex couples? (I don't entirely approve of it, but I do think it should be allowed).
"Well, don't you think that it is silly, then, to consider the marriage question with such a long protracted public debate, without also considering the procreation question? Shouldn't we have a public discussion about procreation, and then however we decide that, decide the marriage question?"
Of course not. I know YOU like to conflate different issues (e.g. same-sex procreation and genetic engineering), but I don't.
"In the meantime, we could agree to the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, which would prohibit trying same-sex conception unless and until the public, through Congress, decides to allow same-sex couples to procreate together using their own (re-imprinted, re-packaged, stem-cell derived) gametes."
Instead of banning something until I figure out it's ok, I'd rather allow it until I figure out that it's not ok. Especially when civil and human rights are involved.
Ax,
ReplyDeleteHow accurate is Mr Howard when he says of your understanding of the definition of marriage...
The core meaning he understands so well is the bundle of rights and responsibilities and obligations that are given when the state officially pronounces their right to conceive children with each other.
Is it true that you buy into his premise that marriage is the only way one has a right to conceive?
"Is it true that you buy into his premise that marriage is the only way one has a right to conceive?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
"The notion is vague."
ReplyDeleteVague compared to what? Compared to traditional marriage, the meaning of the term "same-sex marriage" is clear. Everybody understand what is being proposed by same-sex marriage advocates (except you, it seems). But traditional marriage itself is a complicated concept. Compared to all of the different types of relationships that are humanly possible, marriage is a pretty hard thing to define, and has taken on many meanings, purposes, and forms.
"Likewise with your incompetence."
Sticks and stones, pal.
"Since you have yet to present an actual argument, it is odd that you think yourself arguing at all."
Ironic coming from someone who'd rather fixate on my competence than make arguments.
"In your comments, ax, you emphasized the tradition of romance, but now you say that tradition is unconvincing. You added an emphasis on what "most people" might believe or say or think. Then you ran away from both emphases."
Yes, it's so easy to find contradictions when you focus on "emphasis" rather than what people are actually saying.
"I have not remotely suggested that change in the social institution is "preclued" in my viewpoint."
Great. So even if marriage has a core meaning, you wouldn't be opposed to a change in that core meaning?
"In what way are the universal features of a social institution not essential to distinguishing it from other stuff? "
Distinguishing marriage from other stuff is not the same as distinguishing what is essential about marriage.
"SSM is not distinguishable from other nonmarital living arrangements and types of relationships. So it is in the nonmarriage category."
Except that anyone can easily tell the difference. Or can you not tell the difference between a same-sex married couple and two roommates, or two brothers, or a father and son?
"Most of the nonmarriage category would be excluded for some unstated reason. Favoritism perhaps? Arbitrary thinking, maybe?"
Yes, maybe!
"Try the core meaning of marriage on for size."
All righty, here's the deal. Give for me a clear, straightforward definition of "core meaning", and I'll do my best to define for you the core meaning of marriage, according to the definition you give. Is a "core meaning" defined by what's constitutional? Legally required? NOT legally banned? Universal? Historical? Anthropological? Morally good? Mandated by someone's god or holy text? Aligned with cultural norms? Produces the best outcomes for society?
Ax: Ironic coming from someone who'd rather fixate on my competence...
ReplyDeleteAx, if you have made an argument, point it out. That would have been a competent response.
Tell you what ax, explain two of your most recent assertions, because I think you will need to reconcile these assertions, one with the other.
ReplyDeleteYou said that you can easily tell the difference between SSM and the rest of the nonmarriage category.
Please tell.
* * *
You also said:
"Distinguishing marriage from other stuff is not the same as distinguishing what is essential about marriage."
If the essentials of marriage do not distinguish marriage from nonmarriage, then, nonessentials do?
You have asserted that there is a distinctive difference (or differences) between SSM and nonmarriage. Please correct, confirm, or clarify.
You have asserted that some unstated nonessentials make marriage distinctive from nonmarriage. Please correct, confirm, or clarify.
What makes SSM distinctive but is not essential to marriage, ax?
Please reconcile these assertions as it appears you've promised clarity in regards to SSM even as you've necessitated vagueness in regards to your view of marriage.
Ax, I did not ask you for the confession of incompetence. And my observation of your lack of competence is based on what you have actually said here. This should not surprise nor alarm you since you claimed to have predicted that your confession would be noted.
ReplyDeleteI do understand what the SSM campaign proposes, which is a vague an ill-defined notion. Vague as compared to the core meaning of marriage.
[Musical interlude during which ax might take a looksee in our archives for the answer to his variations on his question about the core meaning of marriage.]
You admit you don't know the core meaning of marriage; you admit you haven't read what has been said on that subject here at Opine.
We get that you are belligerant, ax, not just toward Opine but toward those who disagree with you regarding marriage.
Your sentiment is known; your argument in disagreement with something you have not yet read about, well, it is unknown because you haven't made it. You can't, not until you learn more and make the effort.
If you were a student in a grade 8 social studies class, and refused to read about the very thing you asked about and which is at issue and for which you declared your own certitude, I think a good teacher would assess your treatment of the subject as lacking in competence.
Hey, you might still retain your certitude even after learning about the core meaning of marriage. You might discover that the disagreement does not justify your reflexive belligerence. But you won't really know one way or the other until you do the basics that are expected of anyone participating in a discussion of the core meaning of marriage here at Opine.
Your behavior here has not changed my mind that you, in particular, should do the little bit of legwork in our archives. I explained this very early on to you.
"You said that you can easily tell the difference between SSM and the rest of the nonmarriage category."
ReplyDeleteSure. Your mistake is that you think there exists some absolute, or objective, or universal, definition of marriage, by which one can tell definitively whether or not any type of relationship can be considered a marriage or not, and can place the two into separate categories (marriage and nonmarriage), no matter where or when you are in the universe. I understand correctly that marriage is a concept contingent on cultural, religious, and legal norms; a relationship can be considered a marriage, or qualify for marriage, in one time or place, but not another. Thus, I stick to the simpler and clearer concept of a legal marriage, as understood in the US. Simply, a relationship is a marriage if the parties involved are legally married (have a valid marriage certificate), and they are not married if no such recognition has been granted by the government. Thus, two gay men that get married in Massachusetts are married. My definition allows me the advantage of not having to deny reality, while yours forces you to pretend that thousands of real, existing married couples aren't in fact married. It also allows me to make distinctions between different governments, for example I can state without contradiction that a same-sex couple can be married under state law but not federal law, or in one state but not another.
"If the essentials of marriage do not distinguish marriage from nonmarriage, then, nonessentials do?"
First, your paradigm of needing to definitively distinguish marriage from nonmarriage is mistaken, as I explain above. But to get to the heart of what (I think) you're asking, I'd argue that that the (cultural) "essentials of marriage" refer to the features of marriage that we believe best uphold values that as a society we consider important in marriage; or those values that we believe, if embodied and upheld in marriage, will best serve the married couple, their family/children, and/or society at large. These values are highly contingent on the couple in question, culture, and religion, not to mention the findings social scientists, but I would hazard that "essentials" such as romantic love, mutual respect, honesty, sex, commitment, monogamy, and family formation are very widely held. Even though none of these features are unique to marriage, and a great many marriages lack these features.
Alternatively, I also think of the "essentials of marriage" as describing the legal, constitutionally defensible requirements and restrictions placed on marriage. This is the best way of understanding what the "right to marriage" entails, and who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry under the law. Unlike my cultural definition above, which is contingent on values with much cultural and religious meaning (e.g. love), this is a much broader way of looking at marriage, since government shouldn't be in the business of requiring marriage to conform to specific features or ideals. For example, the ability or desire to have a child is not a legal essential of marriage. That there be two participants, of sufficient age, ARE legal essentials of marriage. (As for the requirement that they not be close relatives, I'm not convinced that current marriage statutes are constitutionally defensible). In California, the requirement of bride and groom is also now a legal essential, even while I find this to be morally repugnant. Of course, the constitution can be changed again, not to mention there's still the federal constitution to think about. Because this is a democracy, the legal essentials of marriage will ultimately be shaped and formed by public opinion on the cultural essentials of marriage. The legal essentials of marriage do NOT distinguish marriage from non-marriage in the sense that you argue, because I reject that such absolute or universal categories exist. But, by definition and without any implication of morality or value, they define who are and aren't allowed to be married.
"You have asserted that there is a distinctive difference (or differences) between SSM and nonmarriage. Please correct, confirm, or clarify.
ReplyDeleteYou have asserted that some unstated nonessentials make marriage distinctive from nonmarriage. Please correct, confirm, or clarify."
I don't recall stating, or even implying, such things.
"Ax, I did not ask you for the confession of incompetence."
On this issue of competence that you oh so love to bring up, the original context of my statement reveals my meaning. It wasn't an admission of stupidity or lack of intellectual capability, but an admission of humility. My point was that I refused to take it upon myself to declare that couples and relationships beyond my familiarity and understanding were or weren't fit to marry. My belief is that, barring legitimate constitutional concerns, ANYONE who wishes to be legally married should be allowed to do so, whether or not I personally approve of such couples or relationships. Of course, you not only took that to mean that I declared myself to be incompetent, but you couldn't resist to repeat it ad nauseum.
"If you were a student in a grade 8 social studies class, and refused to read about the very thing you asked about and which is at issue and for which you declared your own certitude, I think a good teacher would assess your treatment of the subject as lacking in competence."
The difference, of course, is that I am not your student and you are not my teacher. I'm under no obligation to do any homework you assign, or debate under any paradigm or framework that you unilaterally decide. We are two adults engaging in a discussion. If you refuse to say to me what your argument is, then I don't see why I have any obligation to read up on it, much less refute it, especially when I can tell that your way of framing the argument is mistaken. You're behaving like a political candidate on a debate who, when challenged on a point, says "Oh I wrote a book on that before, why don't you go read it?" Of course, because I'm not playing the game according to your rules, or following the line of argumentation that you like, you seem to get angry and frustrated, choosing instead to insult me and distort my arguments. Which, by the way, doesn't bother me a bit; what you type into your keyboard is your business. If anything it's somewhat amusing. If you don't like the way I argue, then ban me or refuse to argue with me; I wouldn't mind that either.
I repeat my offer: define for me "core meaning", and I will define for you the core meaning of marriage.
"You seem to agree with me that the two issues have to be decided the same way, that is, it would be unacceptable in principle to allow one but prohibit the other."
ReplyDelete[ax:] I've never said or implied any such thing. Opposite-sex couples can conceive without getting married, why not same-sex couples? (I don't entirely approve of it, but I do think it should be allowed).
That's not what I said. I said you seem to agree that it would be unacceptable to have a right to marriage, without also having a right to procreate, or to have a right to procreate, without also having a right to marriage (meaning, being forbidden to marry, not merely being unmarried). That is, you claim a right to both of them, on the same basis, that sex is not a supportable basis to restrict either of them. Right?
[Me:] The core meaning he understands so well is the bundle of rights and responsibilities and obligations that are given when the state officially pronounces their right to conceive children with each other.
[On Lawn:] Is it true that you buy into his premise that marriage is the only way one has a right to conceive?
You (purposefully?) left out "officially pronounces" there. Marriage is when the right to conceive has been officially pronounced by the authority of the state, and all the obligations and benefits follow because of that. I never said a couple couldn't have the right unless it was officially pronounced, they certainly can. But one isn't married until that right is officially pronounced, as in "by the authority of the state of Massachusetts, I know pronounce you man and wife, you may kiss the bride." What they mean is, now that you have made these vows and consented, you may now have sex, you may now procreate.
The point is that the bundle of rights and obligations are not the "core", they are the "incidents of marriage." The "core" is that the couple is officially pronounced to have the right to conceive children now. It is NEVER given to couples that don't have that right, and it should never be.
Ax does believe this, and I'm sure he would agree that if we gave same-sex marriage but still prohibited same-sex conception, that wouldn't be a real marriage at all, it would pull out the core of marriage and leave only the incidental benefits. That's why he argues so strenuously for something that might never even be possible and he can't even explain who desires it or why.
I never said a couple couldn't have the right unless it was officially pronounced
ReplyDeleteThats as Wonderlandian as Ax's statement, "I don't think anybody had a problem with all-white and all-black schools both being recognized as schools. It was the segregation that bothered people."
I'm glad you two are having fun together.
now that you have made these vows and consented, you may now have sex, you may now procreate
Even though you could before, because you never said they couldn't before.
The point is that the bundle of rights and obligations are not the "core", they are the "incidents of marriage."
Which is different then what Ax says marriage is, and different then what you said Ax says marriage is.
That said, I do agree with that statement. The welfare benefits associated with marriage are collateral, and not the purpose for people who really understand what marriage is.
It is the purpose of those looking to defraud the government, like those wanting immigration status or other incidents of marriage so they fake a marriage.
Ax, do you concur (as Mr Howard posits) that with the added language of "officially pronounces" that...
ReplyDelete"[...] you buy into his premise that marriage is the only way one [is officially pronounced to have] a right to conceive?"
So Congress COULD ban one and not the other!
ReplyDeleteI suppose, but both should be banned, and the best way to ban them is with a blanket law banning all attempts that don't join a man and a woman's unmodified gametes. Banning one but not the other makes the ban very weak and meaningless.
Then we SHOULD regulate procreation with marriages (which are generic, public, legal relationships) based on risk!
No no no, you still haven't gotten what I mean by "relationships". I'm not talking about individual couples, I'm talking about how people are related to each other. Like "siblings" is a relationship, "Mother-daughter" is a relationship, "Granddaughter-Grandfather" is a relationship. See what I mean about them being "generic" and "public" and "legal"? (And I should add the term "notorious", which means "known by the public as a fact"). Yes, being married is also a pubic fact, and is how we get "adulterous" as a relationship-type that can be prohibited from procreating, because procreation would be unethical. That means the public thinks it shouldn't be allowed.
So again, all factors are taken into account when determining if a relationship-type would ethically procreate, including risk to the child, family cohesion, public health, public policy, etc, and all couples that are related that way would be treated the same way. Individual people or pairings of people would not be assessed; if they are publicly related in an unethical way (including marital status, age, sex, and consanguinity), they cannot marry or attempt to conceive.
On Lawn, forget the "only", that isn't important. I just stated that I believe a couple has a right to conceive without being officially pronounced married by the state (assuming they have a right to marry, of course). They would be doing it without the official pronouncement of having the right, but they still have the right. And the official pronouncement of having the right to conceive is no small thing, it is what makes everyone weep in the church (also because being officially pronounced to have that right comes with all the obligations and expectations of exclusivity and love and permanence)
ReplyDeleteAsk ax whether a couple that has all the incidents, benefits and obligations of marriage, including the name "marriage", but which is prohibited by law from attempting to conceive children together, has the "core of marriage".
hmmm, Interesting juxtaposition...
ReplyDeleteThey would be doing it without the official pronouncement of having the right, but they still have the right.
benefits and obligations of marriage, including the name "marriage", but which is prohibited by law from attempting to conceive children together
I think you need to work that out in better detail.
Ax, look to the archives. What you asked for is right there within your reach.
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier in our exchange [@9/25/2009 10:53:00 PM ]:
It is bad form for you to not have read more of this blogsite before jumping in to criticize the viewpoint of your hosts. The core meaning of marriage has been well-discussed here.
Normally I'd provide a link or repeat the basics, but I think that your flagrant negligence means that you need to do a little legwork yourself.
Search our archives for the phrase and then we can discuss it further.
[Pause for ax to go and come back from the search utility at the top of the homepage.]
Instead of bothering to learn about the very thing you asked about, you pout and wish for your poor behavior to be rewarded by spoonfeeding you.
And then you invite us to ban you? Yours does not seem to be the response from an adult in discussion with another adult, ax.
You can do better than that.
* * *
When you point at a license, you point a license for something. What is that something?
Identify it by what makes it different from other stuff. Elibility lines are drawn around this differentiation.
Both the license and the lines are not self-justified. They are justified by the societal significance of that something being recognized. If there is no such significance, which would differentiate that something from other stuff, then, both the license and the lines are unsustainable.
Why not license nonmarriage? Why bother signifying who is and is not married if there is nothing special about marriage?
I expect you will say there is nothing special and so there is no special reason for the special status that the license signifies. Or something along those lines. But you might surprise.
* * *
At the beginning of our exchange, I suggested you reconsider the standards of argumentation you invoked. Now you have made those standards your beginning and end. This is why you still need to learn more about the core meaning of marriage by reading the arguments you say you would read if only I had made them.
* * *
It is tragic that you think that incompetence means stupidity or lack of intellectual capability. This is narrow-minded of you.
If I thought you incapable I would not have asked you to learn; if I thought you stupid, I would not have challenged you to raise your game. Since my analogy of the student fits -- you are a learner and you have asked me to help you learn about the core meaning -- it is also tragic that you suggest that learning and teaching is not appropriate for discussions between adults.
I've asked you to instruct me on your viewpoint. I have sought to learn from you the very pardigm and framework upon which you hang your certitude. You cited bits from a court opinion that contradicted your comments so you reframed your comments and still left contradictions. That teaches me something about your viewpoint, ax, that you seem rather uncertain about. Vagueness has its purposes, you might say.
Regarding stupidity, I will say this: SSM argumentation is stuck on stupid because it invokes rules or standards of argumentation that would destroy the pro-SSM complaint and its proposed remedy. Making marriage mean less and less is the fundamental problem with your vague and ill-defined notion, at the outset, and this is not corrected by your attempt here to change the intellectual paradigm or tinker with the legal framework.
What makes SSM a type of relationship that is distinctive from the rest of the nonmarriage category?
It is licensed, you say? That's it?
Really. Some change of paradigm that is, ax.
License nonmarriage and Presto! nothing is left to distinguish marriage. In fact, this is the logical outcome of what you have been saying here.
I'll give you this much, you have only now started to provide the basis for an argument. One against marriage rather than for SSM, by the way.
Where did Ax invite us to ban him?
ReplyDeletePeople aren't banned for being evasive, snarky, self-contradicting, arguments, nor for use misuse of the body of knowledge surrounding DNA or Biology.
So far I think he's safe.
Also Chairm, I think there is a much easier way to come up with the same reproof of Ax.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could spend more time to achieve a bit more focus. I only say that because a few embellishments and lofty accusations are giving him way to much wiggle room.
John Howard said: "They would be doing it without the official pronouncement of having the right, but they still have the right."
ReplyDeleteThey are eligible to marry because they retain the right to attempt to procreate together.
On the other hand, human manufacture is neither a right in itself nor intrinsic to marriage itself. It is extrinsic to both human rights, civil rights, and marital status.
Indeed, human manufacture is a transgression of human rights and of the core meaning of marriage.
Indeed, human manufacture is a transgression of human rights and of the core meaning of marriage.
ReplyDeleteI'd say it is a transgression of human rights -- period.
If marriage is to be brought into it at all, it is to mark that marriage does not provide a exception to that rule. Would you agree?
On Lawn, ax said: "If you don't like the way I argue, then ban me or refuse to argue with me; I wouldn't mind that either."
ReplyDeleteI agreed that his invite doesn't match our commenting policy. He seems to be banning himself from our archives, though. That, too, doesn't match our commenting policy regarding disagreement.
Thanks Chairm. I believe I understand what you mean when you say Ax is banning himself from our archives. Its the same result to simply restrict ones self out of lack of time or energy. But for the sake of neutrality, lets just keep things as simple as possible, okay?
ReplyDeleteThat is a good example of an elaboration which by going beyond the mark gives cause to wiggle out from your real thrust. Just saying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn, I certainly do agree with you that marriage does not provide the basis for an exception for that. Marriage stands against it.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think, fears the worst: that the SSM-merger would provide a political basis for normalizing human manufacture the very way that marriage normalizes responsible procreation.
The SSM campaign doesn't provide much cause for optimism that their proposed merger of nonmarriage and marriage would safeguard the liberty to attempt to procreate together as husband and wife. Nor that would such a merger guard against the normalization of human manufacture. It is far more likely to jeopordize the marital liberty and thus have an overflow influence outside of marriage. Such as the manufacture of human beings not to be born but as raw material for other purposes.
John's scenario is not the only scenario but I think it is plausible nonetheless, given what the SSM campaign says and does in its attack on marriage.
John,
ReplyDeleteIf a man showed up with a doorknob at the courthouse, would the state have to write a law banning human-doorknob reproduction in order to deny him and his doorknob a marriage license?
Me: Ax, if you have made an argument, point it out.
ReplyDeleteAx: .
Ax has clearly given up. Someone help Ax out. If anybody can find an actual argument Ax has made, please point it out.
Ax, you shifted between the thing being recognized (a type of relationship) and the individuals who enter that type of relationship together.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion is about the type of relationship for which society issues a matching type of license. It is not about this or that particular person's relationship.
Common law marriage exists in some states and is recognized across state lines. No license. The special status is the same.
In Massachusetts there has never been common law marriage; and the statutory law's man-woman criteiron has not been rewritten. The license to SSM in that state is not based on legal norms nor on the norms of constitutional jurisprudence. It is a radical departure that does not self-justify even when being voiced by fellow citizens in judicial garb. In fact, it was an abuse of judicial review, which is also against legal norms. It also runs directly against the democratic principles of that state's constitutional form of government.
The license is not the magic trick you thought it was. Nor is adherence to legal norms. The magic lies in that "new and radical thinking" which stands outside of the legal norms and which stands against the special status that the license signifies.
The issuance of a license to marry is a mechanism of statutory marriage; its limited purpose is also served within common law marriage system which the statutes codified. The purpose is to clarify which individuals have entered marriage and have the status of husband and wife. It is not a vague license. It is not a fishing license or a driver's license or a liquor license. It is issued for a matching type of relationship.
Marriage is a public type of relationship and is so for public reason. It is not a purely private arrangement; it has societal significance that merits the special status that the license signifies but does not create.
The special status is justified by special reasons. See the core meaning of marriage. This is extrinsic to the category of relationships and arrangements which are one-sexed. And that category is a subset of the broader nonmarriage category which includes a wide range of two-sexed arrangements and relationships.
Ax, you said you could easily tell the difference between "a same-sex married couple and two roommates, or two brothers, or a father and son". But you did not tell the difference.
Two room-mates of the same sex are a couple of the same sex. Two brothers, also. A father and son, likewise. What is the difference that is so easy to tell?
The license would be denied the brothers, for example, so pointing back to the license is circular thinking.
And, no, it won't be same-sex sexual behavior nor same-sex sexual romance nor same-sex sexual attraction nor gayness -- because these are not criteria for eligiblity to SSM anywhere that SSM is licensed.
What makes SSM, SSM? What makes it different from the large category of nonmarriage? Whatever that is, why would it merit a license for special status that the rest of the nonmarriage category would not?
These are questions that are raised by your own complaint about eligibiilty for the special status. You are pointing at a license to make SSm distinctive from other arrangements. So your pardigm is not so different as you thought.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you responding to now? I haven't even seen Ax reply to your last salvo against him.
I think you need to work that out in better detail.
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn,
There are three categories. One is married couples, they have the right to procreate and are officially pronounced to have the right to procreate. Two is unmarried couples that are eligible to marry each other but just haven't, they have the right to procreate but have not been officially pronounced to have the right to procreate. Three is couples that are not eligible for marriage and do not have the right to procreate (the third category might have some sub categories in it of whether their procreation is a crime and punished or not).
OK, now to my statements:
"They would be doing it without the official pronouncement of having the right, but they still have the right."
This was referring to couples of the second category, couples that are eligible to marry. Their procreation is not prohibited.
"benefits and obligations of marriage, including the name "marriage", but which is prohibited by law from attempting to conceive children together"
That refers to couples of the third category, that are prohibited from procreation, like siblings, children, and same-sex couples after we pass a law that would prohibit use of modified gametes. So far there have never been marriages that were prohibited by law from procreating together (except in China, though they are still allowed to procreate once).
The question to ask ax was: would he feel that a married couple that had all the incidents and protections and obligations, including the name "marriage", but were prohibited by law from attempting to procreate together (even once), still retained the "core" of marriage?
John,
ReplyDeleteExcept that I find the "core of marriage" paradigm can all too easily digress into a 'true scottsman' rabbit hole.
I agree that is a good question for Ax. Do you accept this rewrite?
Ax,
Would you feel that any [homosexual] couple that had all the incidents, protections, obligations, and recognition of 'marriagte' yet were explicitly prohibited by law from attempting to create children, still retain everything that marriage means to them?
How does that work for everyone?
John, I think, fears the worst: that the SSM-merger would provide a political basis for normalizing human manufacture the very way that marriage normalizes responsible procreation.
ReplyDeleteThis is the point I was making to ax, that he feels same-sex procreation should be allowed for the very seem reasons he feels same-sex marriage should be allowed. He feels it is a simple matter of sex not being a Constitutionally supportable basis to restrict someone's choice of partner, for either action. So for him, it's not even that SSM would "normalize" human manufacture at some point in the future, indeed he has already declared it a right. But yeah, for most people, the propaganda of same-sex marriage being a right, and sex not being a supportable basis to prohibit a marriage, will take some time to absorbed before the public is primed to consider the issue of same-sex conception, and at that point, they will be loathe to reverse their thinking and admit they were wrong, so they will let it happen, they will let it be normalized.
This is why same-sex marriage must be stopped in order to stop human manufacture. Well, that's one of the reasons, the other is that if we DO stop human manufacture, but still allow same-sex marriage, then we will have changed marriage and removed the core from all marriages, none of them will be able to say that their marriage officially pronounces their right to procreate any more.
OK, On Lawn, that question works well enough to ask ax. (Adding [homosexual] is unnecessary, for a man-woman marriage, with all the incidents and obligations, that was prohibited from procreating together, would certainly not feel they retained everything that marriage means to them.)
ReplyDeleteAlright John, now even I'm bored with the haggling over the question.
ReplyDeleteDo with it what you will, you and Ax have fun together. I just wanted to make sure you were not unfairly representing what Ax was saying. (Actually I think you still are, but that is for Ax to show diligence in).
"Instead of bothering to learn about the very thing you asked about, you pout and wish for your poor behavior to be rewarded by spoonfeeding you."
ReplyDeleteIn case you haven't noticed, I stopped asking about this a long time ago. You're the one who insists that I read it. I'm simply not interested, I don't believe that your "core meaning of marriage" is worth the trouble of looking up, since the very concept as you understand it relies on faulty assumptions.
"When you point at a license, you point a license for something. What is that something?"
I described that something in my quotation of the CA SC decision already. Twice, I believe.
"Identify it by what makes it different from other stuff. Elibility lines are drawn around this differentiation."
No. Eligibility lines are drawn around compelling governmental interests.
"They are justified by the societal significance of that something being recognized."
So if society finds that what is significant in marriage is also found in same-sex marriage, you would agree to its inclusion in your so-called marriage category?
"Since my analogy of the student fits -- you are a learner and you have asked me to help you learn about the core meaning -- it is also tragic that you suggest that learning and teaching is not appropriate for discussions between adults."
Wow. How magnanimous you are in your condescension.
"I have sought to learn from you the very pardigm and framework upon which you hang your certitude."
Really? Because you seem to have entirely ignored the substance of my last two comments.
"What makes SSM a type of relationship that is distinctive from the rest of the nonmarriage category?"
Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that some sort of absolute "nonmarriage" category of relationships exists. People are either married, or they aren't. Couples are eligible to be married, or they aren't. In this country, that eligibility depends (or should depend) on what is legally and constitutionally permissible. The law and constitution are themselves expressions of public will, which can change.
"License nonmarriage and Presto! nothing is left to distinguish marriage. "
Yes! You're finally getting it! If the law grants a license of marriage between, say, a pair of 5-year-old twin brothers, then those twins are in fact married, no matter how heinous you or I might find it! The question you should be asking is NOT "What are marriage and nonmarriage?" but rather "Why do we not allow certain pairings to be married?" And then ask yourself if those reasons pass constitutional muster.
(Although I should point out, and amend my previous statements thus, that the law and government are not the only authority recognized by the people with regards to marriage. Churches and religious authorities can also count. For example, a Catholic couple that gets divorced will no longer be married under the law, but will still be married according to their Church. Whether or not a couple is married will have to be qualified by the authority in question.)
"The discussion is about the type of relationship for which society issues a matching type of license. It is not about this or that particular person's relationship."
ReplyDeleteAnd the rules by which society issues a matching type of license can change to encompass types of relationships that they didn't recognize before.
"Common law marriage exists in some states and is recognized across state lines. No license. The special status is the same."
Correct. The license is really just a useful marker for legal recognition, but it's the legal recognition itself that's important.
"The license to SSM in that state is not based on legal norms nor on the norms of constitutional jurisprudence. It is a radical departure that does not self-justify even when being voiced by fellow citizens in judicial garb. In fact, it was an abuse of judicial review, which is also against legal norms."
This would only be convincing if you actually bothered to address the arguments in the court's decision.
"It also runs directly against the democratic principles of that state's constitutional form of government."
The constitution guarantees some rights to be beyond the reach of democratic will (short of a democratic alteration in the constitution itself).
"The purpose is to clarify which individuals have entered marriage and have the status of husband and wife."
Then a license issued to two men clarifies that they have entered marriage, and have the status of two spouses.
"it has societal significance that merits the special status that the license signifies but does not create. "
Would that "societal significance" then not be ultimately determined by society? If society found same-sex marriage to be equally significant, what then?
"The special status is justified by special reasons."
Then society will differ on those "special reasons." You don't have an ultimate claim on what those reasons are.
"Ax, you said you could easily tell the difference between "a same-sex married couple and two roommates, or two brothers, or a father and son". But you did not tell the difference."
The same-sex married couple is recognized by the government to be married. The others are not.
"The license would be denied the brothers, for example, so pointing back to the license is circular thinking."
No. You keep on thinking that there's some absolute way of knowing which relationships are marriage and which aren't, above and beyond the law and the public will that shapes that law. But the only way to really know is to see if the relationship is in fact recognized as a marriage by the relevant authority, an authority that is in turn recognized by the public as, er, authoritative.
"What makes SSM, SSM? What makes it different from the large category of nonmarriage?"
What makes it different, is that it is recognized by the government to be different.
"Whatever that is, why would it merit a license for special status that the rest of the nonmarriage category would not?"
Again, see my quotation of the CA SC decision, above. In fact, read the entire decision.
"You are pointing at a license to make SSm distinctive from other arrangements."
No. Arrangements that countless same-sex couples have been entering into for centuries have already been distinctive from other arrangements. Society and the law are just finally catching up with that reality.
I repeat: define for me "core meaning" and I will defined for you the core meaning of marriage.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteSome other questions for you:
First, let's say I were to tell you that I have two friends, an adult man and woman, that live together in an apartment, by themselves. They have no children, and do not ever plan on having one. They sleep on separate beds, in separate rooms. They're tired of each other's company, they fight all the time, and are considering getting separate living accommodations. They both occasionally have sex with other people. Are these people married or not? Or to use your words, is this type of relationship a marriage, or a nonmarriage?
Second, how do you reconcile your insistence that SSM is not marriage, with the reality that there exist in this country many same-sex marriages, recognized as marriage by state law as well as by their family, friends, employers, insurance providers, mortgage brokers, etc.?
As to the meaning of "core meaning" itself, is it also called the "sine qua non" ("without which, not")? That one element which, if it is missing, it cannot be considered a marriage anymore? As the Goodridge decision used it here:
ReplyDeleteit is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.
(Of course that's obviously wrong: no civil marriages are permanently committed to each other, and many are not even exclusively committed to each other, but they are still very much valid legal marriages even without that. And they didn't consider whether it is given to couples that are prohibited from procreating, which it isn't.)
Another way of defining "core meaning" might be "about", as in, what is marriage, at its minimum, "about"? It is "about" more than that, but if you disregarded all the additional things that marriage is "about", you'd still have the one minimal thing that marriage is "about."
That is precisely what SCOTUS did in Lawrence v Texas:
To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse.
Here Kennedy identifies the "core" that marriage is, at its most basic ("just about" in the Syllabus, "simply about" in the Opinion), as "the right to have sexual intercourse", which of course is the same thing as the right to procreate together.
Ax, you have not justified your refusal to read the very arguments that you claimed to be seeking just yesterday.
ReplyDeleteYour declared lack of interest is a facade built with your assumptions and speculations. Your concession is on the record.
As are the disagreements between you and yourself. You have just now added a few more.
If, as Op-ed noted, if you had made an actual argument you would have pointed it out.
I had said earlier that it would be amusing if you chose to declare a lack of interest in your own argumentation. But it turns out you lack interest because there is no actual argument in your quiver. Just a vague and ill-defined notion, as your latest comments have again illustrated.
* * *
Op-ed, I think you're right. Ax has given up trying to make an actual argument.
"Here Kennedy identifies the "core" that marriage is, at its most basic ("just about" in the Syllabus, "simply about" in the Opinion), as "the right to have sexual intercourse", which of course is the same thing as the right to procreate together."
ReplyDeleteOh good god John Howard, read the passage you quoted again. Kennedy is saying explicitly that it is NOT merely the right to have sexual intercourse that marriage is all about.
Right, Ax, and I agree it is not "merely" about the right to have sex, also, it is about more than that. The point he's making is that reducing it down to its bare minimum core meaning would demean married couples, because it is about more than that. But in making that point, he identifies the core. Saying it is not "simply" or "just" about the right to procreate affirms that it is, at minimum, about it.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like you to address the distinction I made between someone choosing risky medicine for to cure their own disease, and choosing risky manufacture for someone else who doesn't consent to being conceived that way. Society makes laws on behalf of its future members to make sure we aren't conceived in unethical ways.
The point he's making is that reducing it down to its bare minimum core meaning would demean married couples
ReplyDeleteNo, the point is how demeaning it is to consider it by just the right to have sex.
Well, first of all, it's not at all demeaning to be officially pronounced by the State to have the right to have children with someone, I would certainly feel respected and empowered and affirmed to be affirmed like that, just like it wasn't demeaning to get a driver's license. It is something to be proud of, and something we have a right to achieve. And second, what Kennedy was saying was demeaning was to have a couple's marriage reduced to being only about that, as if there were no other redeeming and admirable qualities about commitment and devotion to each other. Sure there are, and I haven't denied that. Reducing something to the core demeans the qualities that are not the core, true, but it also identifies the core.
ReplyDelete"I would certainly feel respected and empowered and affirmed to be affirmed like that, just like it wasn't demeaning to get a driver's license."
ReplyDeleteThe analogy is deeply flawed. When the state grants someone a driver's license, it grants that person permission to drive: without the license that person can be punished for driving. This doesn't apply to marriage licenses - couples have the right to procreate with or without a marriage license, and unmarried couples who have children are not and cannot be punished by the law. Sure, it could feel great to get a driver's license, and likewise feel great to get a marriage license, but those feelings are not by any means the purpose for granting those licenses!
"I'd also like you to address the distinction I made between someone choosing risky medicine for to cure their own disease, and choosing risky manufacture for someone else who doesn't consent to being conceived that way. Society makes laws on behalf of its future members to make sure we aren't conceived in unethical ways."
Well yes, there's a difference, but as you yourself said, ordinary conception carries its own risks. Hell, so do many forms of assisted reproduction, not to mention complicated pregnancies and childbirths. You have to decide: is medical risk a valid basis for denying the right to procreate, or is it not?
You've tried to squirm out of this by saying it's not valid for so-called ethical ways to conceive, but it's valid for unethical ways to conceive. Besides being a nakedly obvious inconsistency in your logic, it also means that medical risk itself is NOT your basis for concluding that some ways to conceive are unethical. So what is? By what moral reasoning do you conclude that some methods of conception are ethical and others aren't? And how do you justify governmental intrusion into private, ethical decisions by private citizens?
"Well, first of all, it's not at all demeaning to be officially pronounced by the State to have the right to have children with someone,"
ReplyDeleteThis is completely, totally, fantastically irrelevant. The point that Kennedy was making is that it is demeaning to REDUCE marriage to the right to have sex. This has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is demeaning for the state to uphold the right to sex in marriage, and it DOESN'T follow from Kennedy's statement that sex (and therefore procreation) are in fact the "core" of marriage. You're simply inventing meaning from statements that meant entirely different things.
What's especially ironic is that the paragraph you quoted from Lawrence v Texas explicitly advocated an expansive view of the right to private, sexual conduct deserving of freedom from governmental intrusion, and you're using it to justify legal intrusion into private, procreative conduct!
Here's a scenario to help you clarify your arguments, John Howard:
ReplyDeleteLet's say that a man and woman, in love with each other, are both carriers of an autosomal recessive allele for a terrible genetic disease. That means there's a 25% chance that any child they have together would have the disease, and thus be fated to a short, painful life (if not worse). Both have undergone genetic counseling and are aware of this. Is it ethical for these two to conceive? Is it permissible for the government to ban them from conceiving, or punish them for attempting to do so? Can or should the government deny them a marriage license?
And what if the odds of the disease are 50%? 100%?
My point stands regarding regarding Kennedy identifying the core meaning. Yes it demeans married couples to say their marriage is only about the core, but no one is saying that. We are trying to identify the core, not say that marriage is only about the core. Kennedy identified the core there (and even if you don't buy that, you have to agree he affirmed that the right to have sex together and procreate is a key, basic, and essential right of marriage.)
ReplyDeleteRegarding that couple above, if they are not prohibited from marrying by consanguinity, age, or marital status (public data), then they can marry, and if they can marry, they can procreate ethically with their own genes. The government should not be able to prohibit a married couple from procreating for genetic risk reasons. A lab should not be able to tell them it would be unethical to procreate and guilt them into using modified or substitute genes. It would also be ethical for them not to marry each other, and not procreate. The fact that you are asking that question shows how vulnerable procreation rights are, and how important it is to protect marriage from being stripped of its core right.
You have to decide: is medical risk a valid basis for denying the right to procreate, or is it not?
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not. If a couple has the right to procreate, they have the right to procreate regardless of risk. Not all relationship types have that right, and risk can be one of the factors in determining whether a type of relationship can ethically procreate.
And by the way, conception is not a "private" conduct, it literally creates the public. Lawrence was about behavior that can be kept behind closed doors (indeed the right is based on them keeping it private), sexual intercourse cannot be kept behind closed doors.
ReplyDeleteSo what is? By what moral reasoning do you conclude that some methods of conception are ethical and others aren't?
ReplyDeleteThe legislature makes these decisions, and they seem to based on cultural and historical beliefs about what age is appropriate, what relationships are acceptable, etc. Each state has a different dominant culture, which is why some consider first cousin procreation to be ethical and some consider it unethical.
We should add same-sex conception to the list of unethical procreation, not just because of risk, but because of cost, energy use, the likelihood of it becoming a huge unsustainable government entitlement, the way it opens the door to using modified gametes and disrespects the right to use unmodified gametes, the way it would change our understanding of sex and children, the way it disrespects natural fertility and leads to more people becoming infertile...see, many social changes might be considered, not just risk. But risk is certainly one of them, as long as it doesn't apply to one couple at a time, but applies to all couples that would have to use modified gametes.
And how do you justify governmental intrusion into private, ethical decisions by private citizens?
Procreation is not private, government has an obligation to protect the rights of the most vulnerable citizens, including children and future children.
My point stands regarding regarding Kennedy identifying the core meaning. Yes it demeans married couples to say their marriage is only about the core[...]
ReplyDeleteActually, no. As I pointed out before (and Ax even corroborated) Kennedy wasn't making a point about reducing marriage to a core was in and of itself demeaning -- whether or not that would be. Kennedy mentioned a specific core -- the right to have sexual intercourse.
A lab should not be able to tell them it would be unethical to procreate and guilt them into using modified or substitute genes.
And there is another of the problems in your argument. Genetic vectors continue to be developed to treat adults with millions of cells, as well as just the embryonic cell.
If you really are working on a genetic engineering angle, then that shows your proposed law as short sighted.
However, as Ax continues to point out, if you work simply on the same-sex angle then you are contradicting the very fear you try to instill in genetic tampering by drawing an arbitrary line which has nothing to do with genetics.
My take on your evangelism has not changed in the many years I've been subjected incessantly to it.
If you want to ban something you need to ban a specific clinical, laboratory, practice. Not who gets to perform it and who does not.
Ax has done a very good job of showing how you draw the line as very arbitrary (in spite of you proclaiming it "concrete" for yourself).
I think I'll give you a few more hours, but then you are going to be relegated out of this thread so others can have a chance to have a conversation too. You know the arrangement, we've worked this out before.
The specific practice creating people using modified genes, ie, any method other than joining a man and a woman's genes.
ReplyDeleteKennedy wasn't making a point about reducing marriage to a core was in and of itself demeaning -- whether or not that would be.
ReplyDeleteNope, that is exactly what he was doing. That's how it related to the Bowers decision, when it reduced the question to the core about whether the activity was legal or not, without considering the other aspects of a relationship.
Kennedy mentioned a specific core -- the right to have sexual intercourse.
But that is not demeaning! Kennedy was NOT saying it is demeaning to be officially pronounced to have the right to have sexual intercourse, he was saying it is demeaning to say that there was nothing to their marriage except that, it is demeaning to say it is "simply" or "just" about that. How could you imply that it is demeaning to be approved by society to procreate with someone? What are you saying?
Genetic vectors continue to be developed to treat adults with millions of cells, as well as just the embryonic cell.
I'm only saying we should prohibit creating people from genetically engineered genes. I am not talking about gene therapy for existing people.
If you really are working on a genetic engineering angle, then that shows your proposed law as short sighted.
Are you saying we should ban more than just creating people from GE'd genes? I wish you would finally explain what you are saying, instead of taking baseless potshots that only confuse things.
if you work simply on the same-sex angle then you are contradicting the very fear you try to instill in genetic tampering by drawing an arbitrary line which has nothing to do with genetics.
I don't work simply the same-sex angle, I oppose all creation of people that use modified GE'd genes. The only ethical way to create people is through sexual reproduction of a man and a woman, using their actual unmodified genes. That rules out far more than just same-sex conception, it rules out all forms of GE to create people. And its not arbitrary, it is the only place to draw a line that isn't arbitrary: unmodified genes, natural conception of a man and a woman. Where would you draw it?
Thanks Mr Howard. I'll let you have the last word on that. From this point into the foreseeable future, we will continue through our dinner-party like agreement for amway salesmen.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHopefully ax will still answer our question to him, after all that work formulating it.
ReplyDeleteIs this the question to which you refer?
ReplyDelete"Would you feel that any couple that had all the incidents, protections, obligations, and recognition of 'marriage' yet were explicitly prohibited by law from attempting to create children, still retain everything that marriage means to them?"
Yup
ReplyDeleteI really hope ax answers this question. Why the delay?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete