Comments on: The Arc of the Moral Universe http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/ A blog with delusions of grandeur. Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:33:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Melissa http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3459 Melissa Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:52:44 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3459 This discussion has started early at our house, Matt ... today, as we were walking into a grocery store run by conservative Christians, as it were, Charlotte said, "You have to be married to have kids, right?" :) "It’s time for marriage to take the next step: the benefits of civil marriage must be opened to any pair of eligible adults." I agree! This discussion has started early at our house, Matt … today, as we were walking into a grocery store run by conservative Christians, as it were, Charlotte said, “You have to be married to have kids, right?” :)

“It’s time for marriage to take the next step: the benefits of civil marriage must be opened to any pair of eligible adults.” I agree!

]]> By: John Howard http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3427 John Howard Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:18:44 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3427 It is very important that marriage continue to grant conception rights, using the couples own gametes. But it is very tenuous, it seems that lots of people don't think that marriage grants conception rights these days. Those people are menaces to society, they could really fuck up the future just because they are pretending that there is no such thing as gender and same-sex couples should have the same rights as both sex couples. It's a flawed assumption that leads to very bad outcomes, monumentally bad. It's not an exaggeration to say that separating marriage from conception rights would be the biggest change to human civilization since civilization started (not coincidentally, marriage and civilization started simultaneously). You have some explaining to do, Matt. Do you think that a marriage can be prohibited from conceiving? Do you think that a same-sex couple can be prohibited from procreating? (I mean can, as in, it would be OK if the law tried to do that) Or do you still just want to ignore the issue that is and always has been at the very heart of the question? It is very important that marriage continue to grant conception rights, using the couples own gametes. But it is very tenuous, it seems that lots of people don’t think that marriage grants conception rights these days. Those people are menaces to society, they could really fuck up the future just because they are pretending that there is no such thing as gender and same-sex couples should have the same rights as both sex couples. It’s a flawed assumption that leads to very bad outcomes, monumentally bad. It’s not an exaggeration to say that separating marriage from conception rights would be the biggest change to human civilization since civilization started (not coincidentally, marriage and civilization started simultaneously).

You have some explaining to do, Matt. Do you think that a marriage can be prohibited from conceiving? Do you think that a same-sex couple can be prohibited from procreating? (I mean can, as in, it would be OK if the law tried to do that) Or do you still just want to ignore the issue that is and always has been at the very heart of the question?

]]> By: matt http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3419 matt Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:40:10 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3419 Wow, John, you've totally convinced me! Since it's <em>always</em> been that way, of course it has to stay that way! Your point about stoning is <em>totally</em> convincing, and not at all ridiculous. Truly, you are a master of non-hysterical, completely rational argumentation. Wow, John, you’ve totally convinced me! Since it’s always been that way, of course it has to stay that way! Your point about stoning is totally convincing, and not at all ridiculous. Truly, you are a master of non-hysterical, completely rational argumentation.

]]> By: John Howard http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3413 John Howard Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:05:44 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3413 Are you kidding me? Marriage has always been the gatekeeper to sex and reproduction, every single marriage in history has had a right to conceive children together, and doing it without marriage has always been not only wrong but usually very illegal. We don't do it here, lately, but people have been stoned to death since the beginning of recorded history for sex outside of marriage. Massachusetts even has a fornication law on the books. Sex only within marriage is one of the 10 Commandments. Even Lawrence v Texas affirmed that marriage gives a right to have sex. Sure, there has always been sex without marriage and there always will be, but it has never been <i>right</i>, and is not and has never been <i>a</i> right. Sex and conception has always been a right of a marriage though. It was the right that Richard and Mildred Loving fought for (they weren't called "Anti-Hospital Visitation Laws", they are laws against mixing the genes and conceiving children together. Same-sex couples should not be allowed to conceive children together, it is too risky and unethical. Are you kidding me? Marriage has always been the gatekeeper to sex and reproduction, every single marriage in history has had a right to conceive children together, and doing it without marriage has always been not only wrong but usually very illegal. We don’t do it here, lately, but people have been stoned to death since the beginning of recorded history for sex outside of marriage. Massachusetts even has a fornication law on the books. Sex only within marriage is one of the 10 Commandments. Even Lawrence v Texas affirmed that marriage gives a right to have sex. Sure, there has always been sex without marriage and there always will be, but it has never been right, and is not and has never been a right. Sex and conception has always been a right of a marriage though. It was the right that Richard and Mildred Loving fought for (they weren’t called “Anti-Hospital Visitation Laws”, they are laws against mixing the genes and conceiving children together.

Same-sex couples should not be allowed to conceive children together, it is too risky and unethical.

]]> By: Rachel http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3365 Rachel Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:47:54 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3365 Dude, "grant conception rights?" Seriously, I don't know what license you applied for, but I'm sure the line must have been short. Most people just go ahead and have sex/insemination/IVF, whether they're married or not. Marriage is not the gatekeeper to reproduction that you seem to think it is/can/ever will be, and it never has been. I have to agree with Matt here -- you're off on your own thing. While I'm not saying the conversation about advanced reproductive technology isn't worth having, it just isn't as connected to marriage as you seem to think. People who want to have kids have them, married or not. That's a given, and public policy isn't going to change that, so we have to look at how, with that as a constant, public policy can best meet the needs of the full population. (Incidentally, science is going to advance unimpeded by marriage laws, so again, I think these two things aren't as inextricably linked as you believe.) Dude, “grant conception rights?” Seriously, I don’t know what license you applied for, but I’m sure the line must have been short. Most people just go ahead and have sex/insemination/IVF, whether they’re married or not. Marriage is not the gatekeeper to reproduction that you seem to think it is/can/ever will be, and it never has been.

I have to agree with Matt here — you’re off on your own thing. While I’m not saying the conversation about advanced reproductive technology isn’t worth having, it just isn’t as connected to marriage as you seem to think. People who want to have kids have them, married or not. That’s a given, and public policy isn’t going to change that, so we have to look at how, with that as a constant, public policy can best meet the needs of the full population. (Incidentally, science is going to advance unimpeded by marriage laws, so again, I think these two things aren’t as inextricably linked as you believe.)

]]> By: John Howard http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3285 John Howard Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:06:32 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3285 No doubt, you want the conversation to leave out the right to conceive children together, which has always been the essence of marriage. It has been the one constant throughout the history of marriage. Your post makes great sense as long as we leave out the issue of same-sex conception. But as soon as you become aware of that issue, and as soon as you remember that marriage is how society approves or denies a couple the right to conceive together, you got to step back a little and think about the permutations, and the implications become clear: Support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise to Stop Genetic Engineering. Visit my website www.eggandsperm.org and have the conversation there with me. No doubt, you want the conversation to leave out the right to conceive children together, which has always been the essence of marriage. It has been the one constant throughout the history of marriage. Your post makes great sense as long as we leave out the issue of same-sex conception. But as soon as you become aware of that issue, and as soon as you remember that marriage is how society approves or denies a couple the right to conceive together, you got to step back a little and think about the permutations, and the implications become clear: Support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise to Stop Genetic Engineering. Visit my website http://www.eggandsperm.org and have the conversation there with me.

]]> By: matt http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3284 matt Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:33:00 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3284 John, You're trying to have a different conversation than the one I'm interested in having with regards to this post. Reproductive technology isn't a necessary component of the question of same-sex marriage, and I don't want to distract from the topic of the post. You haven't "corrected [my] mistaken impression." You've stated your opinion, which is fine, but it's not part of the conversation I want to have on this page. John,

You’re trying to have a different conversation than the one I’m interested in having with regards to this post. Reproductive technology isn’t a necessary component of the question of same-sex marriage, and I don’t want to distract from the topic of the post.

You haven’t “corrected [my] mistaken impression.” You’ve stated your opinion, which is fine, but it’s not part of the conversation I want to have on this page.

]]> By: John Howard http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3283 John Howard Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:04:11 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3283 It's not my own thing, it's Dr. Richard Scott's thing. There are lots of researchers working on it. There are lots of LGBT groups that insist that it be legal. And lots of ethicists who know we need to prohibit genetic engineering and cloning. And I've corrected your mistaken impression regarding marriage requiring procreation. It guarantees a right to attempt to conceive together. You need to revise your position, not just pretend you don't understand my point. It’s not my own thing, it’s Dr. Richard Scott’s thing. There are lots of researchers working on it. There are lots of LGBT groups that insist that it be legal. And lots of ethicists who know we need to prohibit genetic engineering and cloning.

And I’ve corrected your mistaken impression regarding marriage requiring procreation. It guarantees a right to attempt to conceive together. You need to revise your position, not just pretend you don’t understand my point.

]]> By: John Howard http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3282 John Howard Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:59:33 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3282 That should be "half-clone", a mixture of two people who happen to be so crazy they would put their own vanity ahead of the health of their child. That should be “half-clone”, a mixture of two people who happen to be so crazy they would put their own vanity ahead of the health of their child.

]]> By: matt http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3281 matt Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:57:41 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3281 John, You're off on your own thing, man. You take care now. John,

You’re off on your own thing, man. You take care now.

]]> By: John Howard http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3280 John Howard Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:55:04 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3280 It's unethical in numerous ways, the most obvious being the enormous risk of genetic defects that the child will be burdened with. Animal testing shows a less than 1% success rate, and even that one surviving mouse can't be verified to be "normal". It is totally unnecessary and sends the wrong message about adopted kids and step children. There is no way of knowing what psychological issues would result from being a commissioned "helf-clone" of two men or two women. Women would only be able to have girls. It diverts resources from medicine for actual health problems. It opens the door to genetic engineering, which would lead to eugenics and a genes-race that would further separate the rich and poor and the first and third worlds. Why do you feel it is necessary to develop same-sex conception, why do you feel that we should put those concerns aside and allow scientists to attempt it anyway? Is a biological connection that important? By forbidden, I mean a couple would be told they are not allowed to conceive children together. They could be forcibly contracepted, or refused IVF treatments for whatever reason. Married couples should not be forbidden from conceiving children. All people should have a right to marry, and all marriages should have a right to procreate with their own genes. No one should have a right to conceive with someone of the same sex. Allowing marriages that are prohibited form conceiving together would strip conception rights from marriage and make it legally possible to prohibit any couple, or any person, from conceiving. Same-sex couples should have equal protections in the form of Civil Unions that do not grant conception rights, and marriage should be preserved as granting conception rights. It’s unethical in numerous ways, the most obvious being the enormous risk of genetic defects that the child will be burdened with. Animal testing shows a less than 1% success rate, and even that one surviving mouse can’t be verified to be “normal”. It is totally unnecessary and sends the wrong message about adopted kids and step children. There is no way of knowing what psychological issues would result from being a commissioned “helf-clone” of two men or two women. Women would only be able to have girls. It diverts resources from medicine for actual health problems. It opens the door to genetic engineering, which would lead to eugenics and a genes-race that would further separate the rich and poor and the first and third worlds. Why do you feel it is necessary to develop same-sex conception, why do you feel that we should put those concerns aside and allow scientists to attempt it anyway? Is a biological connection that important?
By forbidden, I mean a couple would be told they are not allowed to conceive children together. They could be forcibly contracepted, or refused IVF treatments for whatever reason. Married couples should not be forbidden from conceiving children. All people should have a right to marry, and all marriages should have a right to procreate with their own genes. No one should have a right to conceive with someone of the same sex. Allowing marriages that are prohibited form conceiving together would strip conception rights from marriage and make it legally possible to prohibit any couple, or any person, from conceiving.
Same-sex couples should have equal protections in the form of Civil Unions that do not grant conception rights, and marriage should be preserved as granting conception rights.

]]> By: matt http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3278 matt Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:51:54 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3278 John, <i>Marriage doesn't require procreation, it approves of procreation, and it guarantees a right to attempt procreation.</i> That's a bit idiosyncratic, but, all the same: so? <i>There can't be a marriage that is forbidden from combining gametes and conceiving a child.</i> Forbidden? What in the world do you mean? Also, why not? <i>We should not give procreation rights to same-sex couples, it is far too unethical to allow.</i> Why not? Unethical in what way? I'd be interested to hear arguments, not just assertions. John,

Marriage doesn’t require procreation, it approves of procreation, and it guarantees a right to attempt procreation.

That’s a bit idiosyncratic, but, all the same: so?

There can’t be a marriage that is forbidden from combining gametes and conceiving a child.

Forbidden? What in the world do you mean? Also, why not?

We should not give procreation rights to same-sex couples, it is far too unethical to allow.

Why not? Unethical in what way?

I’d be interested to hear arguments, not just assertions.

]]> By: John Howard http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3277 John Howard Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:34:35 +0000 http://www.unlikelywords.com/2007/06/10/the-arc-of-the-moral-universe/#comment-3277 Hi Matt. Marriage doesn't require procreation, it approves of procreation, and it guarantees a right to attempt procreation. There can't be a marriage that is forbidden from combining gametes and conceiving a child. We should not give procreation rights to same-sex couples, it is far too unethical to allow. Hi Matt. Marriage doesn’t require procreation, it approves of procreation, and it guarantees a right to attempt procreation. There can’t be a marriage that is forbidden from combining gametes and conceiving a child. We should not give procreation rights to same-sex couples, it is far too unethical to allow.

]]>