Redstate

n/t

Hehee, I think they must have missed a little event in history called the Reformation that started people, especially Evangelical Christians, to thinking for themselves.

I missed not only the Messenger. But also the guy handing out bulletins after Mass forgot to give me the special memo just for us Papists.

Or maybe he did, but I was just to scared to read anything (let alone think) for myself.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

...is that the U.S. Supreme Court could rule that the Massachusetts Constitution does not mandate same-sex marriage, and the Massachusetts court erred when it said that it did. Thus, other states do not have to recognize same sex marriages in Massachusetts until it is legally passed into law there.

Oh...and you took a class from a LIBERAL, not a libertarian. No self-respecting TRUE libertarian could vote for Claire McCaskill.

The Full Faith & Credit Clause states:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Here is the important part: It says that the congress may by general laws prescribe the effect of a state's public acts. Well...in DOMA, it is possible that the congress neutered the full faith and credit clause with regard to same sex marriages.

There is also the Public Policy Exception to the Full Faith & Credit Clause, but I believe that the conservatives would almost uniformly strike down the public policy exception, and the liberals would eagerly jump on board - although they would strenuously object on grounds of precedence if a liberal policy were being ruled against.

If DOMA doesn't hold up, I believe that the federal government should have a Defense of Marriage Amendment that suspends the full faith and credit clause in regard to same-sex marriage, not an FMA that outlaws it in every state.

After all, are we federalists or are we not?

"the U.S. Supreme Court could rule that the Massachusetts Constitution does not mandate same-sex marriage, and the Massachusetts court erred when it said that it did."

Since WHEN did the US Supreme court or any other federal court get permission to interpret state constitutions? I don't think they could rule that.

My prediction is that the Supreme Court will never grant cert in a case in which the matter arises.

I'm not an expert in the case, but I believe that there was definitely some of this going on in this case.

Oh...and the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't necessarily have to tell the state of Massachusetts that it had to start applying the law differently within the state, but for the sake of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, marriages under that flawed legal interpretation could not be applied to other states via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I've not read the Bush v Gore opinions, but if indeed the Supreme Court attempted to apply their interpretation of Florida's state constitution, then it was wrongly decided. Unless the rulings issued by a state's court are incompatible with the US Constitution and/or federal law, then they should remain.

This had nothing to do with how the Florida Supreme Court interpreted the Florida Constitution. Partial recounts in certain locales using inconsistent standards was found to violate the equal protection clause. The US Supreme Court has no role in interpreting state constitutions.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The liberal claim that the US Supreme Court illegally interfered-with Florida law, and by that act appointed George Bush to office is a red herring the size of Florida.

Actually, McCaskill cast herself as a libertarian style, more-conservative-than-the-Republicans New Democrat. She fooled a lot of people, especially in southern Missouri. My prof was anything but liberal (she spent one 3 hr class talking about the unConstitutionality of the New Deal).

Even if the Supreme Court does rule the way you think they should, it doesn't solve the problem: it only delays it until a state does democratically approve gay marriage (which IS coming).

As far as DOMA, I've never heard any legal expert think that that would override Full Faith and Credit Clause. Maybe it will, it just seems that most legal minds aren't convinced.

Are we Federalists here? I should hope that our Federalism would come beneath our Constitutionalist convictions. A Constituitional Amendment allowing each state to define marriage as it will will be confusing, impractical, and highly unpopular. A Marriage Protection Act would be more in line (in my opinion) with the rest of the Constitution and more likely to be passed.

But the issue here is that Thompson simply doesn't seem to be able to comrehend that this is, in fact, and issue. Regardless of how it is to be solved (our personal opinions are red herrings in this discussion), Thompson should have some sort of coherant opinion on this subject, and he simply does not.

Full faith and credit to the proceedings of other states kept marriage portable when everyone was using the same basic definition.

Once those definitions change, though, then it just doesn't apply. If I'm in a sensible state, I can give full faith and credit to the proceedings of a state that allows any two people to 'marry,' but that doesn't mean that those proceedings have actually established that there exists a legal marriage in my state.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

If she is a libertarian who voted for McCaskill, then - instead of questioning her intellect - I'm forced to question how shrewd, savvy, and discerning she is. Evidently, not very.

that sees the need for an amendment to insure that marriage is handled in a federalist way?

If it wasn't "unconstitutional" for states not to recognize other state's definitions of marriage, then an amendment would not be required.

I'm not convinced that it is unconstitutional, but this is being proposed to make the situation clear before it becomes a very big problem.

Social conservatives are also interested in conserving what's good in the past. That definitely includes traditional marriage. Government recognition and encouragement of this public good is considered, well, a public good.

You either accept or reject social engineering. Here, you accept it. And that's a legitimate position, as long as you don't complain about other policies on the grounds that it is social engineering.

I reject government social engineering altogether, therefore I believe the government should exit the marriage business altogether.

I'm not saying marriage should be ended. I believe it should be returned to the exclusive domain of the church, where it belongs.

The civil institution of marriage is what should be ended.

With all of the pre-marital agreements these days, there is really no use for government-sanctioned marriages anymore, anyway.

quite frankly - as an institution created by God - I think He is probably almost as appalled that atheists get married...

Oh yeah, Banana, I'm sure that if there is some diety, it's absolutely "appalled" that two people who lack faith in it would pledge a life-long commitment to each other. Goes without saying. That would have to be at least among the top two or three outrages in it's view. Such an awful thing to do, after all.

You're very, very confused.

It is one thing to pledge commitment to another person. It is quite another to enter into a holy union established by the creator of heaven and earth. I think that the government should not be a 4th party to that union.

Yeah, I'M confused. You say that God is "appalled" that atheists are getting married. You then imply that you are not referring to the secular, civil marriage that atheists would enter into, but rather to couples entering into "holy union". Well, unless you're talking about atheists getting married in a house of worship and taking vows in God's name (explicitly or implicitly), I really don't follow your logic. Atheists are not entering into a "holy union", but into civil marriage (i.e., legal, not religious), which is what I referred to when describing two people making a commitment to each other. Your response seems to be, "No, I'm talking about holy union, and God is apalled that atheists are entering into holy union." Or perhaps you're saying that God must be appalled that government is recognizing "marriages" that are not "holy unions", which brings us full circle back to my original comment. Yeah, I'm confused now, actually.

I tried to clarify further below, but I'll do it again here:

1 - people of the same sex and atheists are not really married, even if the government calls it a marriage;

2 - government should get out of the "marriage" business because they are calling things "marriages" that are not marriages at all, and that is the appalling part. It'd be kind of like saying you want a certificate from the government declaring you to be a Christian, but you don't believe that God is real, much less that Jesus is his son. It would be kind of appalling then, I would believe, to the Most High to so terribly mislead people. In fact, I believe the Bible has a certain term for that: blaspheme.

3 - the government should get out of the civil institution of marriage because it is a means of social engineering, and I reject government-driven social engineering;

4 - people of faith should still get married in their houses of worship.

... with a disclaimer something like the ones you see on herbal cures ads:

This certifies that [...] are married under the authority of the State of [...]

The definition of marriage used in this document has not been certified by god or the gods, and the the State of [...] makes no claim that this marriage would meet with the approval of god or the gods.

Would that be sufficient for recognizing the state's interest in having a legal status of marriage, even for atheists, while not annoying the varying theological definitions of marriage that some people have?

And I would still be against it. And if it remains, it should still go by another name.

To add to my position, I'm still in favor of people who do not conform to the Biblical definition of marriage pledging love and commitment to each other. I just wish that they wouldn't imply that their union is something that it is not with their verbiage, and I don't believe that they should need or want the federal government to legally enforce their commitment.

It'd be kind of like saying you want a certificate from the government declaring you to be a Christian, but you don't believe that God is real, much less that Jesus is his son.

So to you, asking the government to proclaim atheists "married" amounts to the government saying that you have entered into a "holy union" (because that's the only real form of marriage), which is a lie and an insult to God at which he is appalled. That's it, right? If so, I understand your logic, but disagree strongly with your premise. An atheist's marriage is just as legitimate as anyone else's. But you are obviously free to have your religious beliefs, however insulting they may be.

Yes. You seem to have my position down pretty good there. I think that they should still enter into a commitment to each other, I just don't think that they or the government should pretend that it is the same institution established by God - which they do when they use the same verbiage.

Certainly, the ideal that we should strive for is marriage as the earthly image of the union of Christ and His church. However, I don't see anything in Scripture and church teaching through out the centuries (not to mention before the New Testament) that says that anything which falls short of that ideal is not marriage.

Take another look at I Cor 7, for instance, where Paul certainly holds marriages between non-Chistians as legitimate marriages.

And historically marriage has been as much about joining of families/clans and property and children, and probably even more about these social aspects than about the personal lives or wishes or affections or holiness of the marriage couple.

Well, I don't want to belabor refuting what seems to be an unsupportably restrictive definition of marriage, the implications of which lead to logical tangles that even Alexander the Great couldn't resolve.

And Rightly So!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

no, there's no reasonable doubt about OJ :p

Whether or not the government says you are married, unless a marriage conforms to the Biblical institution of marriage, you may have a union, and you may call it a marriage, but it is not really a marriage and you're not really married in the actual sense of the word. You just have something that goes by the same name as what a real marriage is, which happens to be the government's definition of the word.

You're free to have that opinion and to express it, but I hope you're aware of how insulting it is to atheists and agnostics. Kind of like if, say, a Christian said that there are no real marriages other than Christian marriages.

Sometimes the truth is difficult to swallow. People who boldly declare truth are rarely incredibly popular people. Some of us are burdened with the the conviction that it should be spoken nonetheless, however.

May I ask if you're a Christian, and if so, what denomination. You don't have to answer if you prefer not to. In any case, is "marriage" between non-Christians not a "real" marriage? What about a "marriage" of a couple that is Hindu? What about followers/worshipers of Charles Manson who thought that he was Jesus? Does any faith in any diety/dieties qualify, or just some, for a marriage to be "real" in your eyes?

Christian, Southern Baptist.

I don't know what type of unions they have in other religions, and I don't know what they call them. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the only three who have legitimate claims on the term "marriage," however.

Other faiths have real unions in accordance with their faith, or non-faith as it may be. But they don't have "marriages."

Hoo boy! Again, you're entitled to your religious beliefs, but man oh man is that extremely insulting to literally billions of people. Not that that's a reason to change your religious beliefs, but perhaps it's a reason to make sure you've researched and thought it through thoroughly however you see fit.

"Marry" and it's derivatives are modern versions of the pagan Latin term "maritare". Most of us have no problem with Southern Baptists calling their unions marriage, even though they don't have Venus' blessing.

The term marriage has a secular legal meaning. If you also have a sectarian meaning of the term, that doesn't impose any reason for the state to adhere to your theological restrictions. Similarly the state can't require worshipping Venus & Co. as a condition of being married

BrooksRob, I'm not trying to nitpick, but deity should be "deity", not "diety". The spelling that you use drives me nuts for some reason.

Well, I AM a dyslexic agnostic...I'm not sure if there's a dog.

Thanks. Hey, if that word can overcome the "'i' before 'e' except after C" rule, maybe there IS a God!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

yeah, random selicteon.

Why use the word "marriage" at all then? If you're so devoted to the idea that the concept of "marriage" is unseparable from the biblical conception of holy union and that applying the term "marriage" to any union that doesn't perfectly and exactly match up to that biblical conception somehow cheapens the holy institution and blasphemes God, then why not use the actual name for it? If the name and the concept cannot be seperated, then you should use the ancient Hebrew word, whatever that is. The ancient Hebrews certainly didn't refer to the holy union as a "marriage;" that term is derived from old French. Why blaspheme God and his holy institution by watering it down with heathen vocabulary?

That way, the Government can still preserve the heathen European institution of marriage, while not blaspheming God by performing and sanctioning whatever it is that perfect holy unions are supposed to be called.

So then let government find a different turn of phrase instead of the English translation of the Hebrew original.

And I will still oppose it on the grounds that it is an unnecessary social engineering devise of the government.

See above

Certainly marriage at its heart starts with the two people. But even the ceremony itself recognized that this is a public expression of an private committment that needs the support of the community to endure. And in that, the community since time immemorial has created societal status to protect not just the marriage itself but also the children of this union and the families whose relationships to each other are explicitly altered by this marriage.

One might argue about the proper limits of community/government recognitions, but marriage inherently involves the larger community as well as the two individuals.

And Rightly So!

You are talking a language that Banana doesn't speak. He has an unshakable premise (unless it can be shaken by theological argument) that there is no real marriage that is not a "holy union", period. It is so because it is so. Nothing else factors in -- not tradition, not different cultures (or our own), not societal or other human benefits (other than, perhaps the benefits that may accrue from doing what his religous beliefs mandate), not the nature of the relationship or commitment other than whether or not there is the right type of religious characteristic, nothing.

I just was trying to not write in Christian "code". Indeed, I would argue that Biblical teaching leads to a nearly opposite conclusion when you begin with BR's starting point.

I mean isn't BR's view the dream of every philandering husband: "Honey, I know you think that we're married, but guess what..."

And Rightly So!

lol. Wow, I'm totally oblivious to the "code" I guess (reminds me of that scene in the movie Airplane when the waspy older woman intervened to help another white person communicate with an African-American and said "Excuse me, I speak jive."). And your other comment reminds me of a buddy of mine who used to joke that, since he got married in New Hampshire and got his marriage license there, technically he was only married in New Hampshire, so....

By the way, at first I was confused with your use of BR for Banana Republican, because sometimes people call me BR.

If you want to get govt out of marriage, and make the argument based on libertarian/social engineering points then fine. But the idea that it should do so out of the constitutionally-bankrupt idea that the recognition of traditional marriage requires it to do the same for gay unions should be rejected by all conservatives and anyone else who respects the Constitution.

Not one provision or line in the Constitution was ever conceived, framed, or ratified with the understanding that it requires the state to treat homosexual unions the same way it treats traditional marriages.

And that should be the bottom line.

How's this for a crazy idea for protecting marriage. Those who now spend so much much time and energy fighting to prevent two gay people from marrying instead focus most of their energies on fighting for legislation that would either ban divorce or would at least end no-fault divorce, impose a waiting period of say, 10 years for a couple without children (assuming no children arrive during that period) and 15 years for a couple with children, plus severe financial penalties, a requirement to wear a scarlet letter "D" for a full year, and various other disincentives that can be thrown in. Whaddaya think? I'd bet anything that such legislation would do a lot more to preserve heterosexual marriages than would preventing legal marriage by gays.

change it they are expending the time and energy that could be spent being, as they once proclaimed was their goal, left alone. They won't leave marriage and its defenders alone.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Granted, I seem to be one of the few gays left who feel this way with all of the special rights they're seeking these days.

I proudly voted for Prop. 2 in Texas - The constitutional amendment defining marriage in Texas as excluding same sex marriages. And I lambasted everyone I knew in Montrose who voted differently.

I wasn't very popular there for a while. But most of them are so stupid that they couldn't come up with a cogent counter-argument either.

like you have helped inform my opinion.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

_all of the special rights they're seeking_

Please list these "special rights" and explain why they are not "equal rights".

1. Hate Crimes. Instead of punishing all crimes equally, regardless of why the criminal committed the crime, they want people who commit crimes because they particularly don't like gay people do be treated more harshly. That is unequal protection under the law. That's a special right have sought.

2. Same-sex marriage. Homosexuals are allowed to get a government sanctioned marriage if they conform to the government's rules, which happen to be that they marry someone of the opposite sex. The government doesn't require "married" couples to have sex with each other or prohibit them from having sex with other people - perhaps people of the same sex. Quite a few marriages would be invalidated if this were the case. Heck, it's worked beautifully for Bill & Hill all these years. The conception of Chelsea was probably the last time they ever saw each other naked.

But gays aren't happy with that. They want to entirely redefine a centuries-old institution - which has already expanded beyond what the Bible knows as marriage, as I've already lightly touched on elsewhere - in order to accommodate them. I'd DEFINITELY call that the seeking of a special right.

On hate crimes, your beef is with the concept of hate crimes, not with gays being included. Any group (including Christians) is covered by hate crime legislation, so inclusion of anti-gay hate crimes is not a "special" right, but an "equal" right.

On marriage, if someone wants to marry a woman, do they have that right? Well, yes, if that person is a man, and no if that person is a woman. Hence, unequal rights. So again, they're not seeking "special" rights, but merely "equal" rights. Yes, that would require changing a traditional definition, and you can argue that such a change is unjustified or bad or wrong for whatever reason (i.e., other considerations outweigh the principle of equal rights in this case), but that doesn't change the fact that they are merely seeking equal rights.

Not "any" crime is included in hate crimes legislation. Only those "hate crimes" that the federal government has a particular problem with. If you are not a protected class, it doesn't apply to you. I have a problem with hate crimes applied to other groups, too, but gays are certainly one of the groups that has led the charge for this special right.

I stand corrected. I checked and it seems clear that you are right that only specified "protected classes" are covered. So a good case can be made that hate crimes are a special right for the groups covered. But your beef is not with gays, in particular, seeking this "special right", but rather with ANY group seeking these rights, unless you are arguing that gays are even LESS worthy of special protection than the other protected classes (are you saying that? And if you're interested https://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Comparison%20of%...). So I'd say it is a special right they are seeking, but only equal to the special rights of Jews, blacks, etc., NOT a special right just for gays.

of equal PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

If only the judges and justices on the Courts could figure that out.

We've been up and down this one. First, equal protection and other aspects of the 14th Amendment do imply Constitutional protection of equal rights, at least per my understanding. But more importantly, I'm talking about equal rights in a philisophical, not a Constitutional sense (i.e, the notion of equal rights we would be discussing if there were no Constitution).

The universal definition is that marriage is between one man and one woman. Study the comparisons below and identify the unequal rights, thus the discrimination:

Party 1, Party 2 - Marriage? (yes/no)
Hetero man, hetero woman - yes
Homo man, hetero woman - yes
Hetero man, homo woman - yes
Homo man, homo woman - yes

hetero man, hetero man - no
homo man, homo man - no
hetero woman, hetero woman - no
homo woman, homo woman - no

So Dems want stare decisis on the issues they want but change the ones they don't like. How convenient!

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

Of course they do. Recall the statement in Lawrence v. Texas majority opinion that Bowers "was wrong when it was decided and it is wrong now." Compare that to the multiple obstacles Sandra Day O'Connor invented in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for overruling a prior case.

Mike, I'm not talking about how proponents of marriage rights/opportunity should spend THEIR time; I'm talking about what would be by far a more effective use of the time of OPPONENTS. Do you disagree with my premise?

of marriage, any time spent on other issues related to same will have been in vain.

see Europe

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

So are you saying that a more effective use of time in the effort to preserve marriages is to fight against legislation that would allow gays to marry rather than fighting for legislation that would make divorce much more difficult?

For the Second Smartest Man in the Room, this is rather imprecise langauge.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Come on, Mike, an intelligent and reasonable guy shouldn't encourage Neil's silly, petty, disingenuous snipes.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Neil, will your silly sniping ever stop? Are you still upset because I called you on an utterly absurd argument you couldn't defend on another thread yesterday? You know exactly what I meant. I obviously wasn't suggesting that gays would be arrested for having some private marriage ceremony. I was obviously referring to legally recognized marriage. But you know that. Once again, you're being very petty and immature. Please grow up.

Homosexual men are allowed precisely the same legal rights to legally marry that I am. No more, no less.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Unless you have a crime committed against you, then the gay has more rights.

But in re: marriage, see my helpful little chart in post 37 on this thread to illustrate your point.

that the posting numbers change after you've posted. Thought it was a number fixed to your post. Not No. 37 anymore.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

... you can right-click on the subject line of that comment, copy the URL/location, and paste it into your own comment. That stays valid even after other comments are posted.

Does a woman have the same right you do to marry a woman?

Men and women are treated differently under the law. In fact, men and women are treated differently under many laws. Society has always condoned a segregation of the sexes where nature dictates it, and such segregation is in fact celebrated today in such venues as the WNBA and the Women's event of the World Series of Poker.

Trying to fight that is to bark up the wrong tree.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

And there are laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender (you seem to have forgotten that), so the question of which is appropriate relates to the specific matter at hand. The WNBA is allowed to exclude men presumably because they would have a physical advantage (and perhaps some other reasons), because no law prevents anyone from setting up a male basketball league and because playing pro basketball is not considered a fundamental "right" (philisophically speaking) and perhaps the most profoundly-affecting life choice for many people. Now compare all of the above to marriage. Now consider that a woman does not have the same right to marry a woman that you do. Now tell me that not letting her marry that woman is not a denial of equal rights.

It is not a denial of equal rights. She has the "philosophical right" to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like a man does.

Thank you tcgeol for saving me in this debate. Well done.

I'm suddenly reminded though of an old essay series by the kind of guy I'd think you'd like, BrooksRob. Issac Asimov, as secular a humanist as you're ever going to run into, wrote a neat series of essays about symmetry and asymmetry in nature called "The Problem of Left and Right," published from October 1971 to February 1972 and collected in the Dell book The Left Hand of the Electron.

The good Doctor paints himself into a real corner, politically speaking, by devoting the first essay, "Odds and Evens," to the concept of parity in nature. He shows how such odd/even, left/right, positive/minus dualities exist all over science, and how they are natural and tend to be conserved in fact. But he doesn't stop there, he goes on to show that even human (and most species) sexuality shows the exact same pattern.

That clearly made him uncomfortable as a liberal Democrat, because he finished off the essay heming and hawing about how attitudes toward marriage are changing, despite the inexorable laws of nature he just expounded upon so clearly before.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

nt

I thank you and I mean it. That was an excellent way to put it, and I wish I'd thought of it just now. But you thought of it, so all is well, heh.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I've certainly heard of Asimov (a fellow Mensan), and know (if I'm correct) that he was an atheist, but I'm not familiar with his writings.

He's one of the best science writers ever, and on top of that wrote the series (Foundation) that beat out Lord of the Rings for the Hugo for best series ever.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

He started out in science fiction, but spent most of his career in non fiction.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

ok, tcgeol, nicely done (seriously, not sarcastically). I still consider it a denial of equal rights, just as I would if the law said that anyone can marry someone of, say, the same religion or same race, but not of a different religion or race. You could say, "Hey, everyone has the same right to marry within his race", but that doesn't really work in a meaningful sense, does it?

'Race' is an invented legal construct. Sex is a well defined, easy to test biological and genetic construct.

Anti-miscegenation laws were hateful and with no basis in reality, perverting the definition of marriage. Our actual definition of marriage is entirely grounded in the way the world actually works.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

As for the ability to define differences, that's a cop-out argument. For one thing, it could be self-declared. And I noticed you addressed race but not religion. That's just an irrelevant point, a cop-out from the principles involved here.

As for your distinction re: anti-miscegenation laws, or for that matter hypothetical laws restricting marriage to couples of same religion, you are free to argue tradition or utilitarian justifications, but that doesn't mean you aren't denying equal rights -- which is the question we're discussing here -- it just means that you are offering a justification for doing so.

that's a cop-out argument.

Ah a BrooksRob "referee" call. Why am I not surprised?

Think Long Term.

Apparently the fact that I was right is relatively unimportant to you. Here's another "referee" call: Double standard on your part demonstrated here.

Oh sorry ... was that a "red herring"? Or "straw man"? Or ...

Think Long Term.

Our actual definition of marriage is entirely grounded in the way the world actually works.

True ... Whether or not one can marry from outside of a religion, caste, race, tribe, or even a certain geographical location varies from place to place. It's amazing when you look at it, how different marriage customs are - how certain things vary.

However, what doesn't vary is the number of people (2) who can get married, the sexes (man - woman) of the people who can get married, and (3) the restriction to non-conjugal/natal family members.

Think Long Term.

The difference is that male and female are the same in every religion, race, social class, etc. A Buddhist male is the same as a atheist male, just like a black woman is just as much female as an Asian woman. That consistency is marriage.

In order to have marriages to preserve, one must preserve the institution of marriage.

I do favor making divorce more difficult and making the consequences of adultery more punitive.

Forces! walk AND chew gum

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I thought you might respond with that. I thought perhaps I should have covered it, but thought you would realize what I was saying. Yes, both can be pursued. But there seems to be a lot more time and effort (from what I've seen, at least) devoted to preventing legislation recognizing gay marriages than promoting legislation to make divorce much, much tougher, so naturally I'm asking you where you think time and effort is GENERALLY better spent as far as effectiveness in preserving marriages. In other words, given that you and others have a finite amount of time to devote to advocacy and so you have to allocate your time between the two, and if -- hypothetically, and please bear with me -- there's only enough time to succeed in one of them within the next year or two, which would be the priority if the goal is preserving marriages?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

How is it that something that would slightly increase the number of married couples is a bigger threat that something that dramatically decreases the number of married couples?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Arguments_concerning_divo...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/50/

Secondly, even if the data did support your assertion, correlation <> causation. Do you have some mechanism whereby SSM leads to increased divorce rates?

Would you, personally, be more likely to get divorced if a married gay couple moved into the house next door? Why or why not?

kind of sex acts one prefers, when one can enage in sex acts without being married, then why bother.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

How do "sex acts" come into it at all? All SSM proponents want is the ability to tie themselves, both legally and ceremoniously, to the person they love.

Anyway, people can engage in "sex acts" right now (heterosexuals too!) without getting married, and yet, lots and lots and lots of them get married each year anyway. Why do they bother?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

So I'll ask again...

Heterosexuals can engage in "sex acts" right now without getting married, and yet, lots and lots and lots of them get married each year anyway. Why do they bother?

It takes a while for alterations to social institutions and arrangements to percolate through to be noticeably gauged, usually it takes one or more generations of people growing up with the change.

So ... that we're not seeing any appreciable differences right now at this point is no argument one way or another.

Think Long Term.

FYI, Mike http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/sam_brownback_and_ga...

oh, you have to scroll down after landing on that page.

I posted something very similar above. It was promptly ignored.

teh rearing of children from biological parents. Government is the parent.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Hold on there a sec, Cubster. I though gay marriage is what made all the difference, right? What'd I miss?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Come on, now. Don't take me excessively literally when I was using an expression ("made all the difference"). I obviously meant that you were asserting that it was a major causal factor, and it seems that, upon being presented with information/evidence to the contrary, you're backing away from that assertion without saying so. If I'm misperceiving your comment, let me know. Are you still sticking with your original assertion? Have I characterized it accurately?

a serious blow to the hope that our society and culture would survive over he long run.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

You're avoiding the question, Mike.

SSM. Did it, or did it not, have an impact on traditional
hetero marriage in Europe or Massachusetts?

You're basing this statement on the supposition that two people of the same sex meet the definition of marriage the way two people of opposite sex obviously do.

Think Long Term.

"Marriage" used to mean "Until death do us part".

Now it means "Until we get divorced because we've grown apart or gotten bored with each other or one of us has gotten too fat. Unless we have kids, then we'll stick it out for a few more years while being miserable because we aren't really trying because we know we're going to get divorced soon anyway".

The re-definition you are worried about will affect maybe 1% of the population. The re-definition perpetuated by easy divorce affects 30% of marriages

ooh, nicely done.

in child rearing. It reduces it to a sexual business relationship.

But you make great points about divorce.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Otherwise, we wouldn't allow sterile people or old people to marry.

Marriage introduces financial stability and interdependence that allows one member of the marriage to become a "breadwinner" and one member to become a "homemaker". It also (in this country, at least) gives several financial and legal advantages. Yes, some of these could be worked out through legal negotiation, but some things (medical coverage, tax-free inheritance) cannot. It also gives these advantage essentially for free, whereas a gay couple would need to hire a lawyer to work out all the contractual information.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Don't paint yourself into a corner backing lesbian marriage.

Oh well, you probably have some trial lawyer tricks to talk your way out of that ;-)

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I mean, that would be twice as stable as a tradition hetero marriage! ;-)

Seriously, though, I don't buy into the the idea of the "civilizing" woman. Men and women are both responsible for the choices they make. The end result of your view is that every divorce is the woman's fault because she didn't do a good enough job "civilizing" her husband.

what existed before it, i.e. men behaving as animals raping any woman they chose in between fire and the wheel.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Gamecock will eventually tell you that the way women civilize men and avoid being randomly gang-raped today is that they "played hard to get". See here.

Otherwise, we wouldn't allow sterile people or old people to marry.

No. People who make this argument are doing two things [1] ignoring that marriage is an institution has a history, is universal, and did not just come into being within living memory. [2] it is a social (i.e. human) institution, not a mathematical equation, so the demand for perfect consistency is not really logical.

An old (possibly) sterile man and woman are not any less a heterosexual couple than a young and fertile man and woman.

Think about it; prior to the 20th Century, how would you know, for sure, that a person is sterile? Even rather old people have been known to conceive and give birth.

Think Long Term.

No. People who make this argument are doing two things [1] ignoring that marriage is an institution has a history, is universal, and did not just come into being within living memory. [2] it is a social (i.e. human) institution, not a mathematical equation, so the demand for perfect consistency is not really logical.

No - people who make that argument are very well aware that the only basis for the position you hold is an embrace of tradition and a belief that the way things used to be for long periods of time in most of the world should stay that way. There's nothing inherently wrong about saying "I don't want X to change because I don't like change", where X equals "only heterosexuals are allowed to be married". But you must realize that other people don't agree that tradition alone is a sufficient cause for the status quo.

As far as demanding perfect consistency not being logical... I have a feeling why you're throwing that out there, but let's just say that statement works both ways - why demand that we be "perfectly consistent" about marriage only being allowed for opposite sex couples? Haven't you just stated that would be illogical?

I've previously speculated (and relied on supporting data) that the changing trend in support for homosexuals getting married is a result of greater numbers of American citizens coming to a purpose-based view of marriage rather than a tradition-based view. See for example, here.

They don't exist in a vacuum.

If I'm reading your comment correctly, we agree that both SSM and easy divorce are substantial "re-definitions" of marriage. If one affects a very small percentage of the population and one affects a very large percentage of the population, why is that marriage traditionalist spend all time on SSM and almost none of it on easy divorce?

servitude. I do agree that the liberalization of divocre beyond traditional fault grounds has harmed marriage.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

SSM would impact maybe 1% of people. Easy divorce impacts 30% of marriages.

Why is that marriage traditionalists spend all time fighting SSM and almost none of it fighting easy divorce?

BTW, no one is suggesting outlawing all divorce. I never even suggested that was your opinion, so why are you arguing against it?

I, too, believe that liberal divorce laws are *more* harmful to society than redefining marriage would be.

In fact, I have to wonder if redefinining marriage really woul dbe as big a deal as it is today, if not for the fact that divorce has already weakened the institution as much as it has.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

ummm, tasteful.

Do you honestly believe that homosexuals are unable to feel love? Why are you so obsessed with the sexual aspects of the relationship? The SSM debate is about people wanting to be able marry the person they love, just like you can.

I hate to be so crass, but do you think that your your marriage is just about the "public applause for where [you] want to place [your] schlong"? Or do you think that it is a public pronouncement that you love your wife and want to spend the rest of your life with her?

Just look at who you're talking to. He practically goes by Contestphallus these days, heh.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Let me back up the GC here. It is the radical activists who wish to redefine marriage to be about 'love' and lust, claiming that because they lust after people with the same genitalia, they should be able to 'marry' such people.

They turn marriage from a social institution centered on giving birth to children, to one centered on sexual attraction.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Maybe if we still lived in the 1600's, or we lived in a culture with arranged marriages, you could make that argument. The basis of marriage today is love (or "lust" if you prefer*), not procreation or the maintenance of lines of inheritance.

People marry someone they are in love with. And then they get divorced when they are no longer in love.

* Gosh, does your wife know that "love" and "lust" are apparently interchangeable in your dictionary? I love how you guys try to make it seem like homosexuals are these base creatures that are all about the sex and the lust, but couldn't possibly know anything about love.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

So why do marriage traditionalists spend so much time on SSM and so little on easy divorce? The right-to-life people were able to focus on abortion and Schiavo at the same time, why can't you? Why the focus on preventing SSM to the exclusion of preventing easy divorce, even though easy divorce arguably already has a much bigger impact that SSM would?

People ARE working on making divorce harder: see 'covenant' marriages available in some states.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

They are optional. They aren't very common. There doesn't seem to be much of a push to expand the program.

How many diaries have there been on RedState on the importance of stopping SSM as opposed to the importance of promoting covenant marriages? What is the national debate pushed by marriage traditionalists, SSM or covenant marriages? How many "covenant marriage ballot initiatives" have conservatives worked to present to voters in the past decade?

Come on, there's no comparison here and you know it.

That "marriage traditionalists" spend less time on easy divorce than they do on stopping gay marriage is not an argument in favor of gay marriage.

And besides, it's not as if divorce is as new to the world as the concept of same sex "marriage". Divorce has always existed together with marriage.

Like I've pointed out before, marriage is a human institution (doomed to sometimes not working out), not a mathematical equation.

Think Long Term.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I'll ask again. Did you marry your wife because you loved her or because, I don't know, you thought she would be an appropriate receptacle for your seed and she had good birthing hips? Is she your partner or some kind of breeding machine?

I feel silly even having to ask these questions, because I already know the answers. But you two are seriously arguing that either love isn't the basis of marriage or that it shouldn't be. What gives?

civilize the next generation regardless of feelings.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

So, can two men "act" in love?

a) It's a senseless ad hominem, and b) I'm not married.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

1) You've said repeatedly that marriage either isn't or shouldn't be based on love, but should instead be based on procreation. Do you follow this tenet in your own life?

2) Fair enough. How do you anticipate deciding who to marry? Someone you love and are compatible with, or someone with a positive fertility test and good birthing hips?

hips, Neil...

N/T

And I appredciate that you have conceded that compatibility is essential. Your requirements exlude same sex unions given their incompatibility with pro-creation.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Whatever. Way to intentionally misconstrue my statement to try and score some cheap points. I'm very impressed.

I guess, though, that based on your argument, you also want to prevent old people and infertile people from marrying? Given that they are "incompatible" with "pro-creation".

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

No really, given your assertions that marriage is strictly for the purpose of family stability during procreation, what are you thoughts on male-female pairings that aren't able or willing to procreate, for whatever reason? Should they be able to marry or not?

[1] Irrelevant.

[2] Why can't I seek both?

Think Long Term.

The basis of marriage today is love (or "lust" if you prefer*), not procreation or the maintenance of lines of inheritance. People marry someone they are in love with. And then they get divorced when they are no longer in love.

The idea that intimate, committed relationship are only valid so long as the two feel "in love" is quicksand for society, and the penetration of this idea over the past couple of centuries has undermined the stability of marriage and led many to abandon marriage altogether in favor of serial monogamy (or serial non-monagamy).

Ironically, this idea is at root far more threatening than legalizing gay marriage, because it destabilizes all life-long relationship committments. However, gay marriage would never have come about as a serious proposal without first the stripping away of the societal components of marriage in favor of treating marriage as a strictly private relationship.

And Rightly So!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I guess you are going to stop wasting time on SSM and starting putting all that energy into getting marriage back into the wonderful condition it was in several centuries ago?

No, I'm not arguing for a stict return to the marriage forms of preindustrial society. Much has changed in Western society, obviously, especially the devaluation of land relative to other forms of capital. Nor do I wish to return women to a status of chattel devoid of recourse against abusive spouses and second-class rights.

What I am arguing, though, is that treating marriage as a strictly private affair is going to the other extreme, one that undermines the cohesion of society by breaking the intergenerational glue that helps hold society together.

And my philosophical opposition to SSM is largely that I don't want to go further in that direction of moving marriage to the private sphere.

As a political matter, my main objection to SSM arises when SSM is viewed as a constitutional right that should be imposed by the courts. Politically, I have no problem with SSM being legalized by legislative action at the state level.

However, because of the deep roots that marriage definition plays for a host of laws, I also believe that each state also needs to have the right to determine (by legislative action) what level of acceptance to give to SSMs licensed in another state. Indeed, we have many examples where licensing action in one state is not entitled to full recognition by other states - for example professional licenses such as medicine, education, etc.)

Otherwise, if the courts stay out and one state's approval doesn't force the hands of other states, I don't put much personal energy into SSM issues - for as you rightly note, there are many more important issues that affect a much larger percentage of the population than SSM.

And Rightly So!

It says nothing about the capacity of gay men to love each other when one points out that allowing gays to get married refocuses marriage as an institution to be just about a sexual relationship in a way that allowing a sterile/old/platonic heterosexual couple to marry simply does not.

The raison d'étre of marriage is still procreation, and also the civilizing and care of the next generation by the people what brung 'em to the party. Inheritance? Well, serfs (like everyone) got married, didn't they?

Note that it was only in the 1990s, when the cohort of kids who had grown up during a time when having and raising children out of wedlock was considered just an "alternative" lifestyle that people began to truly comprehend just how much of a social disaster it was.

It got obvious enough that even liberals (including a few feminists!) started making noises about curbing teen/out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

Now, we're being asked to explicitly de-couple marriage from children by redefining marriage to include homosexual pairings/groupings. Putting my religious beliefs aside, I don't know what the consequences of this would be, but I can guess, and I'm pretty confident in thinking it's not going to be good.

The problem, of course, is that it will take a generation or two of people having grown up in such an environment before we can know - a chicken and egg situation if there ever was one.

Think Long Term.

It says nothing about the capacity of gay men to love each other when one points out that allowing gays to get married refocuses marriage as an institution to be just about a sexual relationship in a way that allowing a sterile/old/platonic heterosexual couple to marry simply does not.

You're not as crude as Gamecock but the gist of your statement is the same: homosexuals must have only one purpose for their relationships: sex; heterosexuals who also cannot procreate have all sorts of other purposes in addition to sex.

Defend your statement. Explain the ways in which a heterosexual couple who cannot procreate are different from a homosexual couple who cannot procreate. E.g., show how five of the six purposes of marriage below apply exclusively to heterosexual couples:

1. Marriage is a legal contract.
2. Marriage is a financial partnership.
3. Marriage is a sacred promise.
4. Marriage is a sexual union.
5. Marriage is a personal bond.
6. Marriage is a family-making bond.

The raison d'étre of marriage is still procreation, and also the civilizing and care of the next generation by the people what brung 'em to the party.

Except you were unable to come up with any reason why sterile couples or post-menopausal women should be allowed to marry if procreation is the basis for the definition of marriage.

Now, we're being asked to explicitly de-couple marriage from children...

But we're already doing that by allowing just any heterosexual couple to get married - even the ones who can't procreate! And what's worse, is that we allow couples to stay married even when they decide not to have children! What have the consequences been? We've allowed this to keep happening for quite some time now...

This is pointless. I simply don't know how to argue this point with someone who sees no difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple that cannot/will not have children.

If you cannot, you will never be able to see how allowing one set into a fundamentally pro-creative institution does not change its definition, while the other does. i.e. infertility is nor normative.

To me, marriage is a contractual agreement that exists primarily to establish that any child produced by this woman is also the child of this man and that he therefore has certain obligations towards the child and its mother.

A man (woman) and another man (woman) entering this arrangement makes no sense.

PS: Are you also in favor of marriage being open to incestuous couples? Why (not)?

I simply don't know how to argue this point with someone who sees no difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple that cannot/will not have children.

Well, I've asked you to explain the difference. I see one obvious difference myself - one couple is heterosexual, and the other homosexual. And in fact that is the sole difference upon which the current marriage regulations hinge.

Would you please identify the other critical differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who cannot conceive children which lead you to allow only the latter subset to get married? Or you can just keep decrying how unseemly it is that someone should actually ask you to defend your position.

To me, marriage is a contractual agreement that exists primarily to establish that any child produced by this woman is also the child of this man and that he therefore has certain obligations towards the child and its mother.

You're in the minority on that point: see here. It certainly is a major reason for some people. But clearly it's not the primary reason even for the majority of heterosexuals. The fact is that more people see marriage as having multiple purposes - and that different people prioritize the purposes differently.

Again, it's not that I don't understand your position - it's that I see a rising tide of changing public opinion about marriage (probably not the first time people's view of it has changed) and I think you'll need to do better than just say, don't change, if you want to oppose it.

yes, but what has love got to do with it?

I'm only obcessed with preserving THE civilizing institution.

No, bet then I didn't lobby to create it based on orientation

Again, what does love have to do with it?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Marriage isn't what civilizes. It is rationality, empathy, etc that civilizes. The ability to look at someone and recognize that what you do can impact them. Men are just as capable of this as women.

Good grief, there was a thread here just today about how, throughout history, female leaders were just as violent as male leaders.

I mean, how long have we been "civilized"? Were we civilized when we were fighting bloody wars during the Middle Ages? How about during the Inquisition? How about when we were massacring the Native Americans? How about when we were keeping black people as slaves? How is it that marriage has existed for "5000 years" but we've really only become "civilized" (and one could argue that we still aren't there yet) so very recently.

Heck, Muslims have been getting married just as long as Christians have and they don't seem to be very civilized, according to our standards.

Or is that just the Shia?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

That would have helped you wrap your mind around what civilization is and is not.

I agree that it was rational for society to organize itself around monogamous parents of children.

Rather than around what two men wish to do with each other. That has always been a sideshow.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Is your marriage about "public applause for blah, blah, blah" or is it a public announcement of the love you have for your wife and your commitment to devote the rest of your life to her?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Good night, bud. But please do come back tomorrow if possible and answer that question we've been trying to get you to answer (re: SSM and European marriages, etc.).

Also, if I may add another question -- a separate question, NOT meant as a substitute for the prior one: If, hypothetically, thorough analyses had been conducted by people you trust, and they concluded that there is no correlation between heterosexual marriage rates and whether or not a society (nation, state, whatever) legally recognizes marriage of gay couples, what, then, would be your objection to such legal recognition?

outlined my objections to re-defining marriage to include same sex couples ad nauseum above and in countless other blogs.

Not gonna repeat same now. Nobody Oliver North's me. I'm the lawyer here, and if anyone is going to be asking questions threes time shoping for a gotcha for the jury, it will be

me.

smile

but move on to non penile related issues dot org

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Oh, come on, man. Just give me the courtesy of a nutshell of why you would object even if it wouldn't affect heterosexual marriage rates. Please. Pleeeeeeease. Take one minute to give me a brief, but clear answer. Sorry for hounding you on it, but I kinda got the impression (not exactly diminished by your comment here) that you're ducking this question and it really would be considerate to answer it after all we've discussed on this thread.

on the cake just look stupid.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Thanks, Tboner, but I'm hoping Mike will provide something just a tad more substantive. Anyway, two chicks might not look so bad.

Mike has written extensively about his position on this. Go look it up.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I don't doubt that he has. I also don't think it's too much to ask for a very brief, nutshell answer, given that we discussed the issue for a while on this thread. And I wouldn't want my friend to be the first second baseman in history to be called for a balk.

It's in his history. Go look. Do a search. This topic has been worn out on this Forum. No need to wear it out again for you.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

No, it's not. Probably most or everything else he and I and some others have said in this thread we have said before. So what? We've had a substantial discussion here on this thread, it led to a point at which a natural and very legitimate question was asked, and at least a brief answer would be considerate, particularly if the alternative is for me to go searching for some correct thread and then reading through a whole bunch of commentary to find what may or may not be a direct answer to the question.

And I don't have much interest in "wearing out" whatever those other reasons for his objection may be. I just want to hear what they are and see if they make sense given the assumption, arguendo, that heterosexual marriage rates (or other similar/related trends) wouldn't be affected. Beyond that I don't intend to debate the merits of those reasons. OK, TB? (I assume not, but at least I tried to reason with you)

a diary on your position on gay marriage and see what you dredge up? I am sure Mike will comment if he so chooses.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Why don't you run along and let Mike and me have a substantive, mature, intelligent discussion. I don't think Mike will use your oddly argued comments as pretext for ducking the question (at least I certainly hope not).

talk to himself?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

BrooksRob: Anyway, two chicks might not look so bad.

Tbone: Mike has written extensively about his position on this.

So BrooksRob, where would you stand?

And just to keep this somewhat connected with the post, how would your stand affect Mr. Dobson's endorsement were you to run for President?

And Rightly So!

Divorce rates for heterosexuals drop dramatically if you only count the repeat offenders once instead of counting each one of their 3 or 4 divorces as a separate marriage/divorce.

Think about how many books, magazines, television shows, and such are devoted to 'bringing the passion back into your marriage.'

They all miss the point entirely.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

beecubed is most certainly not me. Just wanted to make that clear.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I guess I need to refine my hypothetical, and ask you to bear with me on this one, since it includes a premise that you consider invalid. Hypothetically, if it were NOT going to reduce rates of heterosexual marriage, would you still object, and if so, why?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Oh come on. Please don't make this like pulling teeth. Fine, I'll try asking the same question a different way, even though it really shouldn't matter. Is your objection to SSM dependent on your assumption that it will lead to lower rates of heterosexual marriage, or if that assumption were taken away, would you still object, and if so, why?

Mike wrote earlier: Allowing same sex couples to wed is an existential threat.

That statement clearly represents a deeper objection to SSM that is NOT dependent on whether it will lead to lower rates of heterosexual marriage.

You're starting to sound like a lawyer engaging in the act of cross-examination.

(Which in some people's eyes is an act far more sinful that homosexual sex.)

And Rightly So!

For you information, there are lawyers who are honest, sincere, trustworthy and hold respect for the law above their own self interests. I had the distinct pleasure of working with one of them at one time. The other two I don't know.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

If the answer is simple it should be quick and easy for Mike to give. Really shouldn't need to be this drawn out. I think I asked a very straight-forward question that would take about 30 seconds to answer. "Existential threat" is not only vague but it probably (but not certainly, because it's vague) represents the very assumption I'm asking him to discard just for the sake of argument, so I really think you're incorrect on this one. Anyway, again, I just want a simple, quick, clear answer to a simple, relevant, legitimate question that is easily answerable in half a minute. Given that we've invested time into the discussion on this thread, I think etiquette would call for an answer. And I think Mike will answer (can't think of a good reason why he wouldn't), but I assume he's otherwise occupied right now.

And Rightly So!

would you sill object to rape? If girls could join the boy scouts it wouldn't be the boy scouts?

The only way to disprove that allowing same sex marriage would not prove an exitential threat would be allow it and risk its destruction.

The assumption is part and partial of exitential.

Marriage is what it is.

Think of it like a club. Society has found that marriage makes society better. To re-define marriage is to inevitably lose members that joined it for what it is.

ipso facto

Society wants to exalt and revere and honor the union of a man and a woman. It is unique.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Mike, I know you know you can answer the question. Please do. It's just a hypothetical, and it does NOT contain an inherent contradiction as you seem to be implying. So again, please answer that very simple question. You can do so in less than one minute, or not much beyond that. There's really no legit reason not to. This really shouldn't be like pulling teeth, bud.

and 90s by liberated and empowered single and divorced moms of 6-8 yr olds who, fearing their litle darlings would risk injury playing in the woods or the dirt in the backyard, decided to re-define baseball by removing the skill of hitting a moving target. Most boys that young are too young to be pitching and hitting a base ball. They need to be playing in the yard and the woods. But the feminization of baseball ruined many a future star by enabling hem to develop bad habits they could never break as they got older.

T-ball proved to be popular though, given that too many dads were getting visitation every Leap Day or less. Participation rates in T-ball went up. But it wasn't baseball anymore.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I'll try yet again. If you're saying that heterosexual marriage will no longer be marriage as we think of it today if gays can marry (with legal recognition), ok, fine. But I'm asking you is this, once again:

If, hypothetically, the rate of actual -- nominal, objective, legally recognized -- heterosexual marriages (even if you don't consider those marriages to be what we consider marriage today) would NOT decrease if SSM were allowed, would you still object to it, and if so, why?

If your answer is "yes", please just say so. And if your reason is that heterosexual marriages as we currently think of them would cease to exist, please say so, please tell me if that would be your ONLY remaining reason for objecting (or if not, what other reasons you have -- again, just briefly if you want), and explain, at least briefly, what you mean and how heterosexual marriages be lessened by the existence of SSM. All of which, if need be, you can answer with just a minute or two of your time.

the answer to your question has taken me more than just a minute or two, and I suspect will take more minutes if you insist on being intentionally obtuse.

I'm your Huckleberry.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Not "obtuse" in the slightest, and please don't cop out. What's the point of having extensive discussions or debates if, when someone gets to a tough spot he just refuses to answer a simple, legitimate question that can be answered in a relatively tiny amount of time. Doesn't seem like good etiquette or consideration, Cubbo.

Tell ya' what: I'll try to answer for you and you tell me if I've got your answer. This isn't particularly considerate of my time, but whatever.

What I'm guessing your answer is:
"Yes, I'm saying that even if heterosexual marriage rates would not decline as a result of SSM, I would still oppose it, because it would change the meaning of marriage even for heterosexuals in a way that would make it less beneficial to them [fill in how here -- less emotional benefit (because marriage wouldn't represent as strong a commitment for some reason?) less spirituality?], to other individuals [fill in who here -- children they are less likely to have?] and to society [fill in how -- couples having fewer children?]. But that is not my only reason, or even really my main reason. My main reason is because my faith tells me that active homosexuality is a sin, and I equate sin with immorality, and I don't want the state to imply that homosexual relationships are not highly immoral by recognizing gay marriage."

How close am I? Can you at least tell me where I'm correct and where not and fill in some of the blanks, now that I've at least provided a framework? Or just answer the darn question yourself?

AND, let me add to the hypothetical, not that you've showing much willingness to address it so far for any reason I can see other than a wish to avoid a tough spot: Assume, just hypothetically, that birth rates from heterosexual marriages would not decline as a result of SSM either. Yeah, you probably reject that premise -- THAT's why it's just a darn hypothetical. And as long as a hypothetical does not contain an inherent contradiction, there should be no problem answering it.

should be allowed to marry.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Come on, Mike, be a guy. I'm done for tonight, but I really hope you'll give me the courtesy of a real answer. I think I'm being very reasonable here and I can assure you I'm not being deliberately "obtuse". Thanks in advance. Hope you have a couple of minutes to answer before you have to start your bathing process for that date tomorrow night.

confirm I'm a guy!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

That second opinion better be a physician. Otherwise I think it's immoral. Anyway, still beggin' ya' for that simple, quick, easy, no-skin-off-your-back answer if you can please do me that courtesy. I'm bending over backwards for it (note: NOT bending over forwards, which would be immoral).

bend over backwards as well!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I'm sure the video will appear shortly on the Web. (sorry to use the word "short"). Anyway, yer killin' me with this question-ducking answer-avoidance.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

boo, Mr. Cub, boooooo! Maybe you need to check for a couple of things below what you checked previously, 'cause there's no reason you can't or shouldn't answer my question unless you're missin' a couple of things down there :p

Be a Brave. Answer the question.

The principle of human equality is at stake here, we should not let rich people create better babies, everyone should be created equal, as the child of the mother and father.

Would you also impose a federal ban on any person having better health coverage than any other person? Is the 'principle of human equality' at stake here?

It will do no good for one state to ban creating a genetically engineered children (such as Missouri did with their cloning ban last year), if Illinois labs will do it right across the river.

The same principle could apply to any state law. You seem to be arguing for the abolition of federalism.

So we need a federal law to stop genetic engineering, an “Egg and Sperm law” like Missouri passed, but federal. Otherwise we are going to have to pay for every child to be genetically engineered to be healthy,

Why? There is something in between banning something and paying for it with taxpayers' money. I happen to believe, for example, that taxpayers should not fund education. This does not mean I believe it should be banned. Do you also favour banning all cosmetic surgery, because otherwise taxpayers will end up having to pay for everyone to get cosmetic surgery? Of course not. There is simply no automatic step from something being legal to the government paying for it.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Would you also impose a federal ban on any person having better health coverage than any other person? Is the 'principle of human equality' at stake here?

You don't see how it would be wrong to let only rich people do genetic engineering on their children? Yes, obviously rich and talented people have numerous advantages in every department, but one place they do not have an advantage, at least not yet, is in fixing their own genes before passing them on to their children. I think the main basis of the truth that we are all created equal is that we are indeed all just the product of our mother and father's genes coming together by fate. If we start to not all be created that way, we will lose that whole basis in one fell swoop.

The same principle could apply to any state law. You seem to be arguing for the abolition of federalism.

Ha, you're one of those people, huh? Some things affect interstate commerce more than others, and this is certainly one of them, because there will only be one or two labs that can do this at first, and they will serve people all over the country. Here, let me show you John Roberts' testimony during his nomination hearings:

SCHUMER: OK. Let me ask you, then, this hypothetical: And that is that it came to our attention, Congress', through a relatively and inexpensive, simple process, individuals were now able to clone certain species of animals, maybe an arroyo toad. Didn't pass over state lines; you could somehow do it without doing any of that. Under the commerce clause, can Congress pass a law banning even noncommercial cloning?

ROBERTS: I appreciate it's a hypothetical, and you will as well, so I don't mean to be giving bindings opinions. But it would seem to me that Congress can make a determination that this is an activity, if allowed to be pursued, that is going to have effects on interstate commerce. Obviously if you were successful in cloning an animal, that's not going to be simply a local phenomenon. That's going to be something people are going to...

SCHUMER: We can leave it at that. That's a good answer, as far as I am concerned.

There is something in between banning something and paying for it with taxpayers' money.

Not really in this case, because of the way we have mandated insurance coverage of most things related to pregnancy. Also, with the research, they will get their money to do what they want to do from somewhere, and we'll give them the same amount we would have given them, it is just a question of bookkeeping for them to say that we aren't paying for it.

Do you also favour banning all cosmetic surgery, because otherwise taxpayers will end up having to pay for everyone to get cosmetic surgery?

Fred Thomson had a real good answer for the immediate situation: we should not add on any more to our health care entitlements or our huge expanding research budget. And make no mistake, people are going to claim that genetic engineering and same-sex conception is an entitlement, should be made safe and affordable, and immediately, with an unlimited budget. That is crazy.

You don't see how it would be wrong to let only rich people do genetic engineering on their children?

You are the one who wants to ban something. It is incumbent on you to make a coherent case for it. I can't respond to your arguments unless you do so.

Ha, you're one of those people, huh?

I am not sure what one of those people is. I was pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument. You suggested that a federal law is necessary because if it is banned in only one state - or in only 49, I suppose - it can still be done somewhere else. That is true of everything. It is not a reason to have a federal law. Indeed, there are further implications. If it is banned in the United States it could still be legal in some other jurisdiction. The logic of your position is world government.

Your quote from CJ Roberts is completely off point. He is arguing that the commerce clause would allow Congress to act in a particular circumstance. He is not arguing that Congress should act or would be compelled to act.

So, no you don't have a coherent case for a federal law. But then you have not made a case that a law is even necessary, let alone that it should be federal.

Not really in this case, because of the way we have mandated insurance coverage of most things related to pregnancy

This is completely off point. There is no reason why, just because something is legal, that the government should pay for it. There is no necessity about this. You can't use this as an argument to say that something should be illegal. If you don't want the government to pay for it, pass a law saying the government shouldn't pay for it - including research.

Fred Thomson had a real good answer for the immediate situation: we should not add on any more to our health care entitlements or our huge expanding research budget.

Yes, he had a great answer. You didn't. I wouldn't favour adding anything to entitlements. I would favour taking things off the list. But I do not favour making those treatments illegal. That is an utterly separate point.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You are the one who wants to ban something. It is incumbent on you to make a coherent case for it. I can't respond to your arguments unless you do so.

Some people are swayed by watching Gattaca, some people just aren't going to be swayed at all, they're firmly in the transhumanist mindset. It isn't incumbent on me to persuade you, in particular. I suggest reading Enough by Bill McKibben if you are serious about desiring a coherent case to respond to.

I am not sure what one of those people is.

People who are so into the concept of libertarian or federalism that they look at every issue only through that lens and reach their conclusions in order to achieve a high score on the Purity test.

You suggested that a federal law is necessary because if it is banned in only one state - or in only 49, I suppose - it can still be done somewhere else.

Right, state laws would be useless for something like this. Any state that allows it makes a ban in another state useless, not only at keeping it out of their borders and keeping their citizens from doing it and keeping their commerce within their state.

That is true of everything.

No, it's only true of things like this. Especially things like this.

It is not a reason to have a federal law.

This is way beyond just needing a federal law for Commerce clause reasons, it needs a federal law for civil rights reasons and international relations reasons.

Indeed, there are further implications. If it is banned in the United States it could still be legal in some other jurisdiction. The logic of your position is world government.

No, just universal bans and international treaties. There is a UN Declaration that bans cloning and one for the "rights of the child" so we wouldn't be out of step with the rest of the world if we signed on to those. It would help us put pressure on countries that might harbor cloning labs to get them to stop - they are truly terrorists, in terms of the nightmare totalitarian future they would force the world into. We didn't need World Government to take out the weapons of mass destruction, we won't need it to take out labs that are creating human clones. We'd easily get a UN resolution to put sanctions in place. The other thing to consider is that countries that do ban cloning or genetic engineering, like most other countries have, are already putting pressure on us to not allow it, since it is basically a racist eugenic totalitarian imperialism we are threatening them with.

Your quote from CJ Roberts is completely off point. He is arguing that the commerce clause would allow Congress to act in a particular circumstance. He is not arguing that Congress should act or would be compelled to act.

Oh, come on, give me some credit for digging up that quote, which is spot on point. You are the one saying that we can't have a federal law, he is saying yes we can. Obviously he isn't going to be saying that we ought to have one, that's not his job. And I think making the hypothetical about toads was Schumer's humorous wink that this is an analogy to the much more serious question of doing it with people, but the same answer applies.

So, no you don't have a coherent case for a federal law. But then you have not made a case that a law is even necessary, let alone that it should be federal.

Do you even believe there should be a law, because it's much harder to convince you it should be federal if you don't even agree it should be a law. I suppose you'll graciously allow Nebraska to ban it if they want to.

"Not really in this case, because of the way we have mandated insurance coverage of most things related to pregnancy"

This is completely off point. There is no reason why, just because something is legal, that the government should pay for it. There is no necessity about this. You can't use this as an argument to say that something should be illegal. If you don't want the government to pay for it, pass a law saying the government shouldn't pay for it - including research.

You've got a very small point. civil truth makes the argument below. And I'll just add that I'm not making the argument it should be illegal because I don't want to have to pay for it.

"Fred Thomson had a real good answer for the immediate situation: we should not add on any more to our health care entitlements or our huge expanding research budget.

Yes, he had a great answer. You didn't. I wouldn't favour adding anything to entitlements. I would favour taking things off the list. But I do not favour making those treatments illegal. That is an utterly separate point.

I'm not sure they are separate points at all. In many cases that you might bring up, sure, there are things we can stop paying for that we should still allow. But in the majority of things in medicine and reproduction, if there is a moral case that we should not pay for something, then that means probably shouldn't be allowing it at all. Hey, I got an 11 on the purity test. But that doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be somethings we are allowed to do ;) Like, for example, I think we should be allowed to have natural children, using our own gametes, with the person we love, using their own gametes. I think that right is threatened by allowing people to do it any other way. More than threatened, it is annihilated, even before people even have the ability to do it any other way, just by people arguing that there should be a right to do it someone other way.

And I'll appreciate it if you don't just make it up for yourself.

People who are so into the concept of libertarian or federalism that they look at every issue only through that lens and reach their conclusions in order to achieve a high score on the Purity test.

I think that if you want to ban something you should have some reasons. You haven't bothered to explain any. I don't examine everything through federalism. But if you think there should not only be a law, but a federal law, you should have reasons for it.

Your reason applies to all issues. If it is banned in one state people could still do it in another state is not a reason for a federal law in this case, it is a reason not to have state government or state law in any case.

Oh, come on, give me some credit for digging up that quote, which is spot on point. You are the one saying that we can't have a federal law, he is saying yes we can.

Okay, credit for digging it up. No credit for understanding. It is not on point at all. I have never said you can't have a federal law. Please engage with the arguments I have actually put instead of just making stuff up. I said that you have not advanced a reason for having a law at all and that you have not advanced any reasons why there needs to be a federal law. I did not say the Constitution does not empower Congress to make a federal law.

Are you really incapable of understanding that there is a difference between Congress having the power to make a law and it being a wise, sensible or defensible thing for Congress to do? Or you just being dishonest?

I'm not sure they are separate points at all.

Then let me explain it to you again. Fred said that new entitlements should not be added. You took one specific treatment and said it should be banned by federal law.

To see that these points are distinct all you have to do is apply the same argument to anything else. Your linking of the points immediately falls apart. Fred said no additional entitlements. Are you saying that all new treatments and all medical research should be banned? I thought not.

But if the two cannot be separated in the case of genetic research how are they separable in all other cases? If one new treatment automatically leads to a new entitlement so does another.

But I am sure Fred was not advocating the banning of all medical research.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

OK, there needs to be a law against it because it will lead to a future where people will not have a right to use their own genes to have children (and the Constitution mandates a federal duty to protect human rights in posterity, not just maximize our own rights today), there needs tobe a law against it because it will sap too much of our resources away from caring for actual sick people that exist, there needs to be a law against it to prevent a genes-rich/genes-poor divide, there needs to be a law against it to protect children from crazy doctors that might try super unethical things, there needs to be a law against it to prevent us from having to start paying for everyone to do it, and there are a host of other reasons, I could go on forever. I don't believe that we can avoid funding it if it is legal. I don't know why you are under the impression that we can easily avoid that, we pay for IVF, we pay for tons of research into genetic disorders, how are we going to not pay for this if it is legal?

And it needs to be a federal law because it is an interstate commerce issue (as Roberts said), it is an immigration issue (these would be new American citizens being created, not New Jersey citizens), it is a 14th Amendment issue, and it violates the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

You are being silly about the federalism objection, you seem to be saying that because there are laws that should not be federal laws, no laws should be federal laws. You have to look at each proposed federal law one at a time, and decide if it should be left to the states or not. You are arguing that it shouldn't be a federal law because some laws should not be federal laws.

OK, there needs to be a law against it because it will lead to a future where people will not have a right to use their own genes to have children

This is a nightmare of your imagination which is simply unconnected in any intelligent manner with the subject we are discussing. This is the wildest excess of the 'slippery slope' fallacy I have ever seen. Because some people will have genetic treatments you imagine that it will therefore become compulsory and no-one will be allowed to have children in any other way. There is simply no connection here. You have been watching Barbarella.

there needs tobe a law against it because it will sap too much of our resources away from caring for actual sick people that exist

That is not something which follows from something being legal. Lots of things are legal which do not 'sap all resources'. If this happened it would be a public policy choice. It is a choice you would oppose, I would oppose and, frankly, everyone would oppose. If it were not something that everyone opposed you would not be able to use it as an argument. If lots of people favoured this idea, when you used this as an argument against genetic research, many people would say 'oh, good', but no-one does. No-one does because no-one wants this. Which leads me to think it is a very unlikely public policy choice.

there needs to be a law against it to prevent a genes-rich/genes-poor divide

This exists now. Do you also favour banning Steffi Graf and André Agassi from having children on the grounds that their children are sure to have an unfair advantage at tennis?

there needs to be a law against it to protect children from crazy doctors that might try super unethical things,

This is already illegal. It doesn't need to be double-illegal.

there needs to be a law against it to prevent us from having to start paying for everyone to do it

This is another public policy choice which seems extremely unlikely. For one thing, you are assuming that everyone wants to do it. If that is the case it is unlikely you will find support for it to be made illegal. It is also unlikely that any law against it will be enforceable.

and there are a host of other reasons, I could go on forever

I hope your other arguments are better reasoned than the ones you have tried so far.

I don't know why you are under the impression that we can easily avoid that, we pay for IVF, we pay for tons of research into genetic disorders, how are we going to not pay for this if it is legal?

Government can avoid paying for it by not paying for it. It is a public policy choice. If you assume that there is a huge demand for this treatment and banning it would be controversial why not campaign for a law to ban government from funding this? Surely it would be easier to get support for that? If that is your worry, focus on campaigning against government funding for the treatment and research.

And it needs to be a federal law because it is an interstate commerce issue (as Roberts said),

This means Congress can act, not that it has to. There are a great many industries, such as utilities and insurance, that are regulated at the state level. Congress is not obliged to regulate all interstate commerce. Nor does it follow that because something is interstate commerce any particular regulation needs to be adopted. Congress could regulate this industry without banning it or choose not to regulate it while allowing states to do so. All of this would be constitutional.

The fact that Congress can act at federal level does not meant that it should. What you need here is an argument that says why this law can only be adopted federally or is much superior if it is. It isn't sufficient to say that if it is adopted in one state it would not apply in others - as you did yesterday - as this would apply to all laws. If that is a good reason for legislating at the federal level then the states should be abolished.

it is an immigration issue (these would be new American citizens being created, not New Jersey citizens),

This is probably the silliest argument I have ever seen advocated on RedState, not excluding arguments by mobies and trolls. Birth is not immigration.

it is a 14th Amendment issue, and it violates the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

In what way?

You are being silly about the federalism objection, you seem to be saying that because there are laws that should not be federal laws, no laws should be federal laws.

Not at all. I am saying that if you want to campaign for something to be a law you need to have reasons for it. If you want it to be a federal law you need to have reasons for that too. I don't have strong feelings about whether a law should be adopted at one level or another.

You have to look at each proposed federal law one at a time, and decide if it should be left to the states or not.

Exactly. And when you have looked at it, you need a reason why it should be at federal level. But comparing it to something that is not similar - birth is like immigration for example - is not a coherent reason.

You are arguing that it shouldn't be a federal law because some laws should not be federal laws.

I am not doing anything so silly. I am not even arguing against this law, or against it being adopted at the federal level. I am simply asking you if you have any coherent reasons either to advocate the banning of this procedure or to advocate that the ban should be at the federal level. You have not produced any yet.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

The mere chance that we will slip down the slope into having to pay tons of money for it, and also that people will feel it is immoral to use their own genes to have children, is enough of a reason to ban it. Only an idiot waits until it is too late to prevent a disaster.

We simply can't let some people do genetic engineering without all those things happening and it eventually becoming virtually mandatory.

I am for natural conception rights, not government regulated, commercial-profit, market-driven labs manufacturing people according to their experts specs. You'd think libertarians would look down the road past their own noses and think about what is truly the limited-government approach.

This is an immigration issue because there children are not born from two parents, they are created in a lab with whatever genes the lab decides to use. You don't have to like that it is an immigration issue, but any for-profit enterprise that creates new American citizens that wouldn't come here without the help of the company is an immigration issue. Birth is also an immigration issue, but having children with the person of your choice, using your own genes, is a basic civil right, which the government accomodates by making all these babies American citizens (and there is an issue even here, I think Ron Paul wants to revisit this policy). There is nothing that says manufacturing children is a basic civil right, so in this case we don't have to let that happen.

Stefi Graf should not be allowed to spend her riches on having her baby genetically engineered. If she carries a gene for cystic fibrosis, she should have the same risk of passing it on that a poor person has, so that the rich don't forget about diseases and the need to find cures for them.

You are obviously just in favor of it being legal, so you are just stonewalling every argument I make, saying I haven't made an argument. But I have. You haven't made an argument why you think it should remain legal, and if your argument is because you don't like making things illegal, then I guess we are done here, go have fun taking the purity test again and again, but please don't try to participate in important adult matters.

It should be illegal, and no state should be allowed to let any labs in its borders create genetically modified people.

Making up my side of the case is just dishonesty.

I think there are real public policy issues in this debate, but you haven't begun to think about or address any of them.

The mere chance that we will slip down the slope into having to pay tons of money for it,

If you have enough support to get this banned, you have more than enough support to get it made illegal to use public funds for this. But your whole "mere chance" argument applies equally to any medical research. Any new research could produce treatments for which there will be unlimited future demand. This is not a good reason to ban research. It is just scaremongering, exactly akin to scaremongering about all scientific research.

That you continue to equate something being legal with government funding reveals that you are incapable of getting out of a leftist mindset on this. It is exactly the same equation John Kerry made when he said again and again that the Bush administration had "banned" stem cell research. In fact the administration subsidises stem cell research. But because there is not unlimited subsidy Kerry claims this is the same as a ban. In just the same way you are claiming the absence of a ban is the same as unlimited subsidy. He is claiming A=B and you are claiming B=A. Since B and A are not equal, he was lying and so are you.

We simply can't let some people do genetic engineering without all those things happening and it eventually becoming virtually mandatory.

If you can't think of a sensible argument this is not a reason to simply tell lies. If you lack the intelligence to participate in debate, I can feel sorry for you, but it is increasingly apparent that you lack the personal integrity too. And I can only feel contempt for that.

This is an immigration issue because there children are not born from two parents, they are created in a lab with whatever genes the lab decides to use.

You are way out of your depth here. Simply asserting that something you don't like is the same as something else unpopular is the height of dishonesty. Do you really not think that everyone can see through this? Birth is not immigration. Assisted pregnancy is not immigration. IVF isn't immigration. Immigration is immigration.

You are obviously just in favor of it being legal

You don't get to make up my side of the debate. Throw as many tantrums as you like. Scream and cry, but you still won't be right.

you are just stonewalling every argument I make, saying I haven't made an argument.

Not at all. I have been showing why your analogies are flawed. You claim that birth is the same as immigration, when it is not. You claim that it is impossible for something to be legal without it being subsidised by the government when it is not. When I ask if this applies to all medical research, since any medical research could produce expensive treatments, you hide in the corner and pretend I didn't ask. You claim this undermines the Declaration of Independence and the 14th Amendment, and when I ask how you don't have an answer.

This technology raises some important issues which this generation and future generations will be struggling with for some time. Before something is made illegal there needs to be a proper debate with some actual reasons advanced. I am not going to put a case for this technology to be legal for two reasons. First, I am not at all sure that it should. Second, that is not the way debates are conducted in free countries. If you want something banned you put a case and people answer it if they can. It is never appropriate that something must be illegal unless someone can think of a reason why not.

For a monomaniac with an interest in only one subject you seem to have given remarkably little thought to it. I would have thought that by now you could have come up with at least one argument that doesn't depend on stretching your logical and ethical capacities to breaking point.

But then, perhaps I am being charitable in assuming you had logical and ethical capacities to begin with.

As I said, this is a serious issue that deserves to be debated seriously. But not, it seems, with you. A shame. I thought you might have had something to contribute. I was wrong.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You claim that birth is the same as immigration, when it is not.

I said there are immigration issues because this creates new American citizens, and the federal government has an interest in people becoming new citizens. It is because birth is automatic citizenship and not immigration, exactly as you say, is why the federal government has to look back earlier to the very conception in order to prevent states from opening our border - and our medical and educational resources - to people created by labs, not from a man and a woman.

You claim that it is impossible for something to be legal without it being subsidised by the government when it is not.

I was just musing about it being "impossible", since obviously there are things that are legal that don't require some expenditure by the federal government. The point I'd been making before you brought up "every law" was that the probability of this thing - genetic intervention and same-sex conception and designer babies - requiring subsidies if it is legal is enough to convince me, as a person who believes in small government and human freedom, that it should be illegal, not allowed for anyone. You are the one who tried to bring in some "that applies to every law" argument and take it off the focus of this particular law. I am not proposing making every area of medical research illegal, and you are being dishonest by implying that we cannot look at each area of medical research independently. Are you really saying that we cannot ban any area of research because we don't want to pay the costs of allowing it unless we ban all medical research? Talk about scare tactics!

When I ask if this applies to all medical research, since any medical research could produce expensive treatments, you hide in the corner and pretend I didn't ask.

Not true at all, i was very succinct in saying "it's only true of things like this. Especially things like this." And by "like this" we were talking about conception, designing the genomes of new people. Though there might be other areas of medicine we might want to ban too, but certainly not all medicine, and certainly creating genetically engineered people, which is not even medicine at all.

You claim this undermines the Declaration of Independence and the 14th Amendment, and when I ask how you don't have an answer.

It undermines the idea that we are all created equal, by allowing the creation of people that are not the natural union of a man and a woman, by explicitly saying that people can be created in order to be different from the way they would have been. It creates a distinction between "naturals" and "purebred" people, who though equal before God still, will cease to be treated as equals, perhaps eventually even by the law, in terms of their conception rights to pass on their substandard genes. That risk is large enough to avoid taking.

Equal protections should protect people from being involuntary subjects of unnecessary experiments that are not otherwise basic civil rights, such as "experimenting" with natural sex. Since there is no basic civil right of man to design a genome and contract a person into existence, the equal right of all future people to not be conceived that way trumps any imagined right to create people that way.

Before something is made illegal there needs to be a proper debate with some actual reasons advanced.

No, this should not be legal until it is proven safe. It is already proven to be unsafe in animals, and there are such serious implications of human dignity involved, that it should be illegal first, before someone actually tries to do it.

I am not going to put a case for this technology to be legal for two reasons. First, I am not at all sure that it should. Second, that is not the way debates are conducted in free countries.

You must be equating "free country" with "stupid country".

If you want something banned you put a case and people answer it if they can. It is never appropriate that something must be illegal unless someone can think of a reason why not.

I've given good reasons why this should be illegal, how making it illegal would be a good thing, and leaving it legal would be a bad thing. You haven't said why it should be legal except with stupid generalizations, refusing to look at the specific pros and cons of making this illegal with a federal ban.

You really are making a fool of yourself with this birth = immigration equation. Yes, people born in the United States are citizens. That is not immigration. Are people born through IVF illegal immigrants? You'll never force this argument to make sense and you are embarrassing yourself in the attempt.

There is no issue with either the DoI or the Fourteenth. Simply saying there might be one day is not a coherent argument. You seem to be under the bizarre impression that at some point in the future some people may want to treat others differently in law. Okay, but that would require a Constitutional Amendment, just as it does now. Medical changes don't change the Constitution.

It is a bit rich for you to call me dishonest, given the level of your arguments. I am sure that got a few chuckles from anyone who is following this debate. I never for a moment implied that different areas of medical research cannot be looked at independently. I said that your argument applied equally to all areas of medical research. Your argument, if you recall, was that this research needed to be banned because it might produce expensive treatments for which there would be unlimited demand. That is why your sophisticated (giggle) separation of research that is "like this" and research that is not "like this" is meaningless in the context of the argument you presented.

The point I'd been making before you brought up "every law" was that the probability of this thing - genetic intervention and same-sex conception and designer babies - requiring subsidies if it is legal is enough to convince me

That is easily dealt with. All it requires is a law saying there shall be no subsidy for this technology. If you have support for a ban then you should easily be able to find enough support for this. If you don't, you are wasting your time anyway.

Equal protections should protect people from being involuntary subjects of unnecessary experiments

The law does this. It is not even connected with banning whole areas of medical research.

No, this should not be legal until it is proven safe.

This principle would ban all research and all new technology. Don't think you are being original here. Luddites have been at this for centuries. What if electricity escapes from the outlets during the night and kills people? What if nuclear reactors turn people into mutants? What if injecting people with cowpox as a vaccination against smallpox turns people into cows. All of these arguments have been advanced by people who wanted technology to be "proven safe" before the research began. This is not only imcompatible with every notion of human freedom and dignity it is a recipe for stagnation instead of progress.

I've given good reasons why this should be illegal

But your reasons don't make any sort of sense. They involve accepting as premises things which are not only ridiculous but demonstrably untrue. They involve believing that birth is the same as immigration and that if something is legal it must, of necessity, be subsidised by the government. Even you have backed down on the latter point and now talk only of a "probability" that some people will want this. If everything that some people wanted subsidised was banned . . . well, I think you get the picture.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You like to say "if we do this, it means we have to do this for everything", implying we can't stop genetic engineering without stopping all medical research, we can't preventively ban anything without preventively banning everything, that is patently ridiculous and dishonest. Obviously we have managed to ban some things while keeping other things legal, and we have managed to enact federal laws while keeping states.

I said that your argument applied equally to all areas of medical research. Your argument, if you recall, was that this research needed to be banned because it might produce expensive treatments for which there would be unlimited demand.

That is one reason to ban it, for people concerned with the possibility of having to fund a giant industry. Is that not a strong possibility? I do not agree with you that it will be possible to not fund this. Even if there is only limited demand, there are reasons to ban it. The message that would be sent by cutting off this future would be very humanizing and reassuring, the ban would have a positive effect even if no one would have tried to do it anyway.

That is why your sophisticated (giggle) separation of research that is "like this" and research that is not "like this" is meaningless in the context of the argument you presented.

I purposefully made it unsophisticated, Quentin. Do you think it is impossible to ban "conceiving a person by any method except joining a man's sperm and a woman's egg" without banning all other forms of medicine? Isn't that like saying we can't set have speed limits without banning driving, or we can't ban marijuana without banning all things? That is a stupid argument, and I hope others following along step in to correct you. You are applying stupid libertarian arguments blindly, just pasting them from some template, without looking at the particular issue in front of you.

To make the point with finality: I am not saying that everything that might become dangerous or expensive must be pre-emptively banned, that is what you keep thinking I am saying, and if that is what I was saying, your arguments would apply. But I am saying that THIS thing that I want banned, conceiving children with lab-created genomes and same-sex conception, which is not done yet, is a discrete and easily bannable area of research, which IS dangerous (less than 1% success for same-sex conception in animals) and IS expensive currently and IS demanded by LGBT groups to be "safe and affordable" and "fully funded", should be pre-emptively banned.

It is not enough to withhold funding for it, because they shift around funds in universities, funding what they can with federal money and funding what they can't with private money, and besides, if something is a bad enough thing that there is moral cause not to fund it, then it is bad enough not to allow anyone else to fund it either. And in this case, where allowing it would create people in inhuman circumstances, as subjects of experiments, designed and engineered rather than as children of their mother and father, it offends DoI, 14th principles right off the bat, to say nothing of the likelihood - almost certain liklelihood - of how it would affect our conception rights down the road, it is certainly bad enough not to allow anyone to do it, in any state, in any country.

Your turn to make an argument about why it should be left legal, why we should take all those risks, why we should let people spend money and resources on it. And "because if we don't, we'll have to ban all medical research also" is a stupid argument, so don't keep making it over and over. Time to actually say why you think it should be allowed.

You like to say "if we do this, it means we have to do this for everything", implying we can't stop genetic engineering without stopping all medical research, we can't preventively ban anything without preventively banning everything, that is patently ridiculous and dishonest.

Sure. That would have been dishonest. I didn't say that or anything that any intelligent person could possibly have interpreted in that manner. The dishonesty is when you keep repeating that I said this when you know perfectly well that I didn't.

I said you raised an argument which, if it was true of genetic research (which it isn't) would be equally true of all medical research. You know that is what I said. You don't have an answer to it. And that is why you have to keep lying about what I said.

Do you think it is impossible to ban "conceiving a person by any method except joining a man's sperm and a woman's egg" without banning all other forms of medicine?

Of course I don't. That would be ridiculous. But unless you are even stupider than I think you are, you know that already. I am saying that your argument that if it is legal it will lead to unlimited taxpayer funds being diverted to it, due to unlimited to demand, would apply equally as an objection to all medical reasearch. So, no, it is not a strong possibility, or even a slim possibility.

By the way, your argument that you cannot prevent universities shuffling money around is a bit more sophisticated. But if this is to support your argument that this will lead to the funding of 'a giant industry' this too applies equally to all medical research. What is it about fertility research that makes it possible in this case but impossible in all others?

it offends DoI, 14th principles right off the bat, to say nothing of the likelihood - almost certain liklelihood - of how it would affect our conception rights down the road, it is certainly bad enough not to allow anyone to do it, in any state, in any country.

But none of this is true or even possible. It has no consequences for the DoI, no consequences for the 14th and there is no possibility that conception by means of sexual intercourse will ever be made illegal. No possibility. None. Just repeating it when you have been challenged repeatedly to explain any connection and totally failed to do so doesn't make it true.

I am glad, by the way, that you have dropped the silly claim that people born by assisted conception are immigrants, though. That is a relief at least.

Your turn to make an argument about why it should be left legal,

That's not my opinion. I won't defend it. I think that if something is to be banned there needs to be a good reason - not an incessantly repeated nonsense.

why we should take all those risks

You haven't outlined any risks, except the patently silly. There may be risks, and this is worth exploring. But just saying that there might be some risks is not a reason to ban something.

why we should let people spend money and resources on it.

That's the basis of a free country. People can spend their resources on anything that is legal. And before something can be made illegal it has to be debated. A law has to be passed. And the proponents of the law have to think of a reason - at least one - why the law ought to be passed.

It seems that your favourite logical fallacy is argumentum ad nauseam. You seem to believe that if you spout the same nonsensical arguments often enough - and if you tell enough lies about me and about what I have said - this will somehow morph into the truth.

It won't.

I wash my hands of you. I foolishly thought there was some spark of potential here: that you might learn the basis of a coherent argument; that you might even learn some basic manners and integrity. But I was wrong. You keep telling the same lies after I have explained to you that you are lying.

You are plainly passionate on this issue, but you seem to have not the slightest idea of how it affects other things. I can't be bothered to explain over and over again that the 'slippery slope' fallacy and the non sequitur are not legitimate arguments. If you don't know this now you are never likely to learn.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You are the one distorting his opponents arguments. You keep trying to take focus off the issue I raise, saying that I am making nonsense arguments when it is you that is making them.

I said you raised an argument which, if it was true of genetic research (which it isn't) would be equally true of all medical research.

Dude, that argument could be used about any form of medical research, but it wouldn't necessarily prevail in other areas. I'm using it in as an argument against allowing genetic engineering, not cancer research, OK? I would argue that research into cancer cures, for example, should continue even though it will likely cost us federal money and need regulation, because it's worth it and it doesn't raise issues about creating resource-sapping transhumans within our borders or violating anyone's right to be created equal. The likelihood that allowing people to conceive people with engineered genes would cost us money both in providing the service and caring for the likely sick people that are created, and would require extensive government regulation, that near-certain outcome is not the only argument, but it is a consideration that ought to resonate with small-government advocates who don't like the idea of the government regulating people's genomes or reproduction. Without a simple ban, it is a virtual certainty that we will need a government agency to make micro-decisions about what forms of GE to allow and what not to allow, what genes people have a right to pass on and what genes they should be required to have fixed, what procedures labs are allowed to use, who can claim guardianship, who is eligible for public funding, all this would come with allowing one lab in one state to start doing genetic engineering. You can reach your own conclusion about how likely it is, but I've reached mine (I read Enough by Bill McKibben). And if you are proposing a completely unregulated genetics industry, available only to the rich, where poor people with the most fixable and devestating diseases are kept from using it because of some federal law banning public funding to allow poor people to use it or it to be properly regulated, you are nuts, more nuts than the people who want unlimited funding for it, and less honest than those who are willing to advocate for it rather than try to shoot it down from the cover of ridiculous logical darkness.

And you don't appreciate how distinct this is from medicine. From Wikipedia: "Medicine is the science and "art" of maintaining and/or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of patients. The term is derived from the Latin ars medicina meaning the art of healing." Eugenics is not medicine, it does not heal anyone, it ditches medicine and care for impatient design of people so as not to need medicine, even though, of course, we will still need medicine. Some truly delusioned transhumanists are under the impression that this will rid the world of all diseases and therefore we won't need medicine anymore, these are the people who want to take away people's right to have natural children.

your argument that you cannot prevent universities shuffling money around is a bit more sophisticated. But if this is to support your argument that this will lead to the funding of 'a giant industry' this too applies equally to all medical research.

Yes, which is why I was making an argument against the whole concept of withholding federal funds as a way of reaching some sort of middle ground between banning something and funding it. I was saying that if there are moral or ethical reasons to withhold funds, then we should probably ban it. People who try to mediate a middle position, like you are doing here, are flat out lying in order to keep it legal and keep research continuing. It is a bogus position. And it is so offensive: the issue is not that we don't want to spend our hard-earned money on it, it's much more about care for posterity and securing rights for posterity.

You are ineducable and apparently incapable of telling the truth when lies are simpler and meet your purposes better.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

it should be banned. I don't understand why you are so opposed to banning it. If it is because of some libertarian opposition to bans, then you're just a fool. If it is because you are a transhumanist, then you are dishonest. If you are not opposed to a ban, then stop hassling. I've given reasons why we shouldn't allow it, you have just tossed them out of court with illogical objections.

Congress should enact an Egg and Sperm law, to preserve natural conception rights and avoid a brave new world of coerced genetic engineering. We should spend that money on real health care.

Eugenics is not health care. Eugenicists exist, and they oppose the Egg and Sperm law. If you oppose eugenics, support the egg and sperm law.

stop bugging me with your private defintitions of 'logical'.

You are ineducable as to its real meaning and lack the integrity to use the word properly in any case.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I think the best solution is a constitutional amendment that bars research, experimentation, or destruction of all living humans from the point of fertilization. This includes banning IVF. I think any doctor or scientist who engages in this stuff ought to be placed into a mental institution.

Of course, I may as well be asking Niagara Falls to flow backward. It is indeed a sick world we live in.

I meant this as a response to qlangley.

And Rightly So!

So is much of the rest of the Constitution.

Regarding the tenth, it seems to me that many people see the fourteenth as sort of cancelling out the tenth. The 14th was a VERY poorly written amendment, and I believe Congress and the states should be forced to ratify a do-over.