Letters: Same-sex couples are ‘incompatible’

It is full of nonsense.

Let me get this: If a legal document uses gender-neutral designators, this will undermine the many, many interactions that define loving family relationships. What a very odd idea.

One wonders if this letter writer realizes that gay and lesbian couples are raising children every day. Or that many straight couples have marriages that never “result in a child.”

While you’re worried about whether legal documents refer to you as the “bride” or “party A” same-sex parents all over the state of Maine are worried that if they die, their partner will have to pay an inheritance tax not owed by married partners. They are worried that if their children are hospitalized their partner can legally be prohibited from being by the child’s side. They are worried that they wont be able to afford health care and their children might die because of not being able to be included on a same-sex partner’s health care plan. I think being called “Party A” on a legal document is certainly a reasonable imposition when it might save a child’s life. I disagree with you on everything but this: “The effects this bill will have on children have been grossly underestimated.” Same sex couples have been, are now, and will continue to raise children no matter what misguided minster calls it wrong. Often we raise children that children heterosexual couples abandoned. Voting no on November 3rd is telling these children that they are equals. They deserve health insurance, they deserve for both parents to be by their side when they are sick. And the both the Maine and federal laws agree. “Equal protection under the law” is what all Maine families deserve. The time is now.

That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.

Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire or even the ability to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And I suspect that those who want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don’t want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.

For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it’s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed’s point of view, it wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically “UN-married” once they decide to move somewhere else.

What a huge pile of nonsense. The MAJOR fear of same-sex marriage is having to sign a document that says Spouse 1 and Spouse 2? Wow! How will those straight couples move on with their shattered lives after such trauma?

“Your mother will no longer by law be your mother.”
Really?! So little Billy will have to call his mother “Party A” for the rest of his life? Thank goodness there are people like you fighting for poor little Billy. Perhaps Billy should have a nice long talk with his father… er… um… I mean Party B.

By the way, I don’t recall procreation being a requirement to getting married. In fact, I’m pretty sure that people have children without getting married. Also, some people get married and have no intention of EVER having children.

“Some discover they can’t have children, but that is because they are broken, not because they are incompatible.”

Disregarding all of the other things that you have said that I disagree with, when has it *ever* been acceptable to call another human being “broken”? I can hardly believe that the Maine Campus would even allow somebody to use language like that in their paper.

There’s nothing new in this letter – simply the same tired and confusing arguments, and all of them wrong.

(1) I don’t understand what is so frightening about making marriage more inclusive. Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, and – currently – Maine permit same-sex marriage. These are states with some of the lowest divorce rates in the United States. (Interestingly, some of the highest rates are found in states that are decidedly not in favor of marriage equality: Nevada, Arkansas, Alabama, etc).

Even Charles Cooper – a prominent and respected lawyer who unfortunately opposes marriage equality – admitted that he couldn’t think of any social harm that would come from allowing gays and lesbians to marry. So what is the fear, if the families in the states that already allow same sex marriage are doing just fine?

(2) I’m not sure exactly what Miriam’s concern regarding adoption is. “Advertised market whose product was little children” is a statement emotionally charged to the point of meaninglessness.

What I do know is that there are far too many children lacking decent parents, a situation that is entirely unrelated to marriage laws. It is already legal in Maine for a single GLBT person to adopt a child. Presumably, marriage equality would allow married couples to adopt children, too. So it sounds as though Miriam Connors would prefer that (1) children languish in orphanages, or (2) be raised by a single parent. Neither of those options is what I’d expect from someone who claims to be worrying about children.

(3) I think Miriam’s use of the word “broken” in regards to people who are unable to have children reveals a lot of personal cynicism, and very little understanding of what truly makes a family.

Families are not baby-making machines. They are structures built on love. They provide support. I know at least two gay couples with children, and they are – unlike some of their heterosexual neighbors – two of the most loving and supportive families I know. Children want to feel loved. Children want support and attention. They are not worrying about whether their parents are “chemically and biologically engineered to fit together and reproduce”.

There’s only one line in this stream of incoherency which I agree with: “The purpose of marriage is more than to recognize the act of falling in love. It is meant to build and strengthen society by creating healthy, happy families.”

I completely agree with that. Allowing loving same-sex couples to be legally recognized as families will create healthy and happy families. What could be wrong with that?

It is surprising to me that people who claim such a devotion to the fabric of families are so anxious to destroy that fabric, and have such barely defendable reasons for doing so.

Marriam,

Firstly I don’t know who let you decide what is “unnatural”. Homosexuality and rather bisexuality occurs in nature amongst a huge number of animals, all as per God’s design. You don’t have to take my words. Go to this reputed science journal site :

http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=gay_bottlenose_dolphin_03.jpg&cat=gayanimals

You have to rank them to move on. Rank them all 1 since you wont like them . But get ready to be shocked .

Ok. When it comes to the human sexuality i.e if natural or not, I suggest you go through this youtube video :

It is funny and simple. I cross checked all the facts they stated. You can do that too.

Now the questions:

1. Why did God create homosexuals – not only amongst humans but also in the animal kingdom? For all those who think it is a choice – can you as a straight person choose to feel sexually attracted to some one of your own sex ? If you are straight – you know the answer is NO. You can choose to commit all other sins – theft, murder, adultery etc but if you are a straight man you cannot choose to be physically aroused by another man. You never chose to have your first erection or erection when you see a naked girl right? Gays have been created by God the way they are. I do not presume to judge his purpose. But this article may give you a hint

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1190747/My-dads-Gay-penguins-parents.html

2. Why is it OK not to be stoned to death for adultery, pre-marital sex as per Bible? Why this selective picking from the bible.

3. Why do people think that giving civil right of marriage to gays and lesbians will force churches to perform marriage. When women were given their civil rights did it force the Catholic church to hire female priests?

4. Finally why does a young Christian in America have to hate LGBT people in order to be Christian? it is important to retain the message of love which Christ brought. The only thing the young today hear is that how ‘Christian’ it is to limit the civil rights of sexual minorities. As they grow old they will meet LGBT people and see that they are not evil and this will lead them to be suspicious of all that they hear from the pulpit. I have no doubt this will lead to creation of atheists.

Cheers!

Alpha

“It baffles me that so many proponents of Maine’s same-sex marriage law feel it is an issue of discrimination and nothing more. It’s much more than that.”

Exactly. It is much more than that – it’s about you sticking your nose into my private affairs and imposing your (frankly skewed) will on me simply because, well, you are an ignoramus who has no understanding of the laws in this country. Please leave, read the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America, and return. No, second thoughts – don’t come back. If you’ve read the document without your rose-colored spectacles, you should be ashamed of yourself for even dreaming up this article.

Good day to you.

How insulting to call heterosexual couples who either decide not to have children, or are past child bearing years, or have fertility challenges as BROKEN.
love = love = love

No little kid runs down to the court house to figure out what they are to call their parents. Daddy and papa, or Mommy and Mom, or Mommy and Daddy are learned at HOME.

It’s a slippery slope! Allowing gays to marry will mean that people can marry their donkeys, just like desegregating schools led to mandatory education for guinea pigs and letting women vote led to ostriches voting.

Studies have shown that 95% of Al Qaeda terrorists are in favor of gay marriage in Maine! Think of the children!

A ‘No’ vote is a vote against God. Period. This is the first time in our country’s history that a demonic agenda has forcefully torn at the psyche of Maine voters to comply with an abominable agenda. Our country was founded on God’s love and blessings, and now it looks as though it might become the haven for even greater depravity when it comes to the indoctrination of children. Now we’re looking at the next generation of kids turning into sexually confused misfits, because if the gay culture has its way, heterosexuality and traditional marriage will become abnormal.

Please vote YES on question 1, and keep Maine safe from creepy homosexuality.

In the neighboring states that have legalized marriage equality, traditional marriage is as strong as it ever was. Why in the world do you think heterosexuality is going to become abnormal? I’m a straight (Christian) guy. I want a wife. I’m not going to marry some dude because it’s legal, and neither is anyone else.

I’m not seeing any abominable and demonic agenda here, either. None of the gay people I know want to indoctrinate anyone – they want to get married and live their lives in peace. They want to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital and provide for their welfare. Why does that frighten you?

Marriage and family are blessings from God. I can’t for the life of me see why you are so intent on denying these blessings to people who you don’t like.

Same-sex couples should not be allowed to attempt to procreate together using their own genes. Attempts at using stem cell derived “female sperm” or “male eggs” should be prohibited, along with all other forms of genetic engineering. People should only be allowed to procreate with someone of the other sex, using their unmodified genes.

Marriage should continue to protect the right of the couple to procreate using their own genes, no marriages should be prohibited from attempting to produce genetic offspring together using their own genes.

A ban on same-sex procreation and other forms of genetic engineering would be incompatible with marriage. That would change marriage so that it no longer protected the couple’s right to procreate together, it could mean people could be coerced or forced into using substitute gametes or modified gametes.

To preserve everyone’s equal procreation rights, we cannot allow use of modified genes or same-sex procreation or same-sex marriage.

@ John Howard:
Since procreation is NOT a requirement of marriage, I don’t think ANYTHING that you’ve posted has any relevance to whether or not gay people should have the right to marry. My partner and I have no intention of manipulating our genes to create offspring. In fact, I have never heard of such a thing. We also don’t intend to adopt children. Although we could if we so desired. Again, procreation and raising children is NOT a requirement of marriage.

You said, “That would change marriage so that it no longer protected the couple’s right to procreate together, it could mean people could be coerced or forced into using substitute gametes or modified gametes.”

So your scenario involves ‘big brother’ breaking into every heterosexual couple’s home and stopping them from having intercourse. Then the government would force them to create their offspring using genetic manipulation. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

@ Dave
I don’t think God’s love and blessings should be used to ostracize a group of people because of their sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound kosher to me. It also doesn’t sound very loving.

I also didn’t realize that civil rights for ALL tax-paying citizens was a demonic and abominable agenda. As for indoctrinating children… having children grow up to be tolerant of people regardless of their religion, skin color, height, weight, gender, sexuality, etc. is hardly indoctrination. I suppose you’d prefer the current way of dealing with gays: getting two or three of your friends together, hunt down a gay man, yell derogatory epithets at him, then beat him up and hope he dies. I’m guessing the people that do that, swear that they are just as religious as you are. They’re just doing God’s will, right?

@ John Howard,

What in the world are you talking about? No one is trying to create frankenbabies out of stem cell engineering or whatever. I don’t think that’s even possible.

If anything, marriage equality will provide better homes for the children who were created the old-fashioned way – by heterosexual couples who abandoned them.

Vote NO on 1! Support everyone’s right to marriage and family!

Procreating is not a requirement, but having the right to procreate is certainly a requirement of marriage.

And China’s one-child policy proves that Big Brother can certainly break into people’s homes and stop them from procreating, so I wouldn’t be so cavalier about officially stripping the right to procreate from marriage. And with the growing number of people reliant on IVF clinics and people being offered better sperm and eggs, the right to procreate with our own genes is threatened, and indeed lost as a “right” that is the right thing to do, just by being equated with the rights of a same-sex couple, who have to use modified genes or someone’s else’s genes to procreate with their partner.

Civil Unions would be much better for you and your partner, because they could be federally recognized and adopted uniformly by all 50 states, they could be defined as being “marriage minus conception rights”.

Your argument that people should only be able to procreate using their own genes is ludicrous. Besides the fact that this has NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage, it would also deny rights to many infertile heterosexual couples. Hetero couples with an infertile husband may very well choose to have a baby that is mom’s biologically using another man’s sperm. Should the woman have to break up with a partner she loves just becuase he can’t produce offspring??! Hetero couples also often adopt children who are not their own biologically. Does this mean they are not loving parents? Absolutely not. A strong bond and healthy relationship is formed by spending time with the child, not by having the same genes. Many of us have a teacher, family friend or mentor who was just as important in our upbringing as our perhaps somewhat or totally absent parents.

Not to mention that your whole line of commentary ignores the fact that many same sex couples ALREADY have children. They might be children they planned together (one partner’s biologically). Or they could be they could be children from a previous marriage, or one that one or both partners have adopted — children that their heterosexual couples were somehow unable or unprepared to care for so the same sex couple stepped up and provided a good home. Should any of these children be denied health care becuase one partner stays home and the other one cannot put the children on their insurance policy becuase their parents are not married? How is that providing these children equal protection under the law, as guaranteed to citizens of all states by the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

To say that same-sex couples should not be able to marry becuase they should not be able to reproduce simply doesn’t hold any water becuase they already do. Not allowing them to marry won’t stop that.

You can’t be serious. Your adjective use here clearly shows that you are only against homosexuality because it is something that you don’t understand, something different. If you knew a normal maine gay or lesbian couple, one of the many trying to raise kids and make a living in your neighborhood, then probably you would come to disagree with your sentiments above.

A NO vote is what god really wants. As Jesus himself said, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). He recognized the fact that civil laws and religious laws do not always correlate, and that is okay. For civil purposes, gay and lesbian couples MUST be allowed to marry. It is the only thing that is fair. It is not even something that we should be voting on really, it should already be there based on the laws we already have. The constitution is set up so that the rights of minorities should never be voted upon by the majority. If we had to vote on whether to allow segregated schools, they would have never beem outlawed, but according to the court, they were not legal under the constitution and had to be ended in the name of fairness and equal protection of all citizens, black or white. Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme court said “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” It is no longer fair to deny marriage rights to people becuase of their sexual orientation.

I’m still at a loss, trying to figure out how same-sex marriage will threaten natural procreation; and I’m not sure why this threat of genetic engineering only applies to gay couples. Gay couples can have children in various ways (child from a previous marriage, adoption), regardless of whether they are legally married; and straight couples will still have the right to procreate naturally if they so desire. I have yet to hear horror stories about genetically-controlled procreation coming from Massachusetts, Iowa, Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Norway, etc. You mentioned IVF clinics, which indicates that this threat already existed BEFORE you added gay marriage to the equation.

I hate to disappoint you, but my partner and I were legally married in California before the citizens there illegally took away that right. Rest assured, we have no intention of merging our genetic code to make, as Michael said, a frankenbaby.

Galena, my argument is that people should have a right to procreate with their own genes, with their spouse’s own genes, and that same-sex couples should not have a right to procreate with their own genes. All methods of creating a child that do not join a man and a woman’s sperm and egg should be prohibited, meaning same-sex couples would be prohibited.

All the other rights of marriage can be given with Civil Unions that are defined as “marriage minus conception rights.”

We should not equate the right to procreate with unmodified genes to using modified genes or someone else’s genes, which is what same-sex couples would have to do.

Micheal, it hasn’t gotten much press here, but researchers are working on ways to create gametes out of stem cells, and hundreds of pseudo bioethicists are employed writing books about “choosing children” and how we should allow genetic engineering and other new empowering technologies. Google Postgenderism and Transhumanism to see that there is indeed a large movement that wants to replace natural sex with labs making better humans.

It is far too premature to say that people have the same right to procreate with someone of the same sex.

All the rights and security you are asking for can be given with CU’s defined as “marriage minus conception rights”, so that marriage is not changed and continues to protect procreation rights.

John:

Procreation isn’t an issue here. Most gay couples don’t undergo science-fiction type processes to create their own children, they adopt children in need of a strong and loving family.

Voting No on 1 will give same-sex couples the right to create those families and provide homes for those children – a right that you actually sound like you support.

The issue here is the legal right to a family, not the right to manufacture test-tube babies. As one of my gay friends put it, “I’d feel better giving a family to a child who needs it than creating another child.”

Sarah, what you want can be given with Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights”. What you are asking for with marriage is equal procreation rights as a man and a woman. Procreation is an issue here because it is a right of a married man and woman and you are demanding that it be given to same-sex couples.

If procreation rights are not an issue, prove it by accepting Civil Unions that are defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and therefore give everything you say you want, and not the thing that you say you don’t want.

Same-sex couples can get the protections they need, including federal recognition and recognition in all 50 states, by agreeing to the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise. That would help families with children much much faster and with much less political damage and fallout than continueing to fight for full equal rights to married men and women, which would devastate everyone’s equal rights, hurt the environment, divert funding away from medicine for sick people, harm children, on and on. All you need is CU’s defined as “marriage minus conception rights”.

Micheal, it hasn’t gotten much press here, but researchers are working on ways to create gametes out of stem cells, and hundreds of pseudo bioethicists are employed writing books about “choosing children” and how we should allow genetic engineering and other new empowering technologies. Google Postgenderism and Transhumanism to see that there is indeed a large movement that wants to replace natural sex with labs making better humans.

It is far too premature to say that people have the same right to procreate with someone of the same sex.

All the rights and security you are asking for can be given with CU’s defined as “marriage minus conception rights”, so that marriage is not changed and continues to protect procreation rights.

So, John, you’re saying that marriage should only be an option to those who can reproduce?

Would you support legislation that denies the right of marriage to heterosexual couples who are (1) unable to have children, or (2) too old to have children?

No, I’m saying same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce, and all marriages should be allowed to reproduce. They don’t have to, they don’t even have to want to, but they should have the right to. Same-sex couples should not.

Anothr way of saying that is that marriage should only be an option to couples that, according to their public information such as their relatedness and age and sex, can ethically reproduce.

Couples of a relationship type (such as brother-sister, mother-son, etc) that would not ethically reproduce shoudl be prohibited from reproducing and from marriage, because marriage should always express public approval of the couple creating offspring together.

So, like others, you’ve created a perfect scenario where the only possible answer is ‘heterosexual couple’. Well done. Usually homophobic people just say that gay couples can’t procreate naturally, so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. You’ve actually approached same the argument from the opposite side, saying that gay couples will try to procreate in unnatural ways, so therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Although I’m not sure what would stop heterosexual couples from using those same unnatural ways, if they weren’t able to procreate naturally. I suppose those couples (as well as senior citizens) should only be allowed civil unions, since they are also unable to ‘ethically reproduce’.

“Anothr way of saying that is that marriage should only be an option to couples that, according to their public information such as their relatedness and age and sex, can ethically reproduce.”

So you do believe, then, that women over the age of forty should not be allowed to be married?

“All methods of creating a child that do not join a man and a woman’s sperm and egg should be prohibited.”

Presently, there are no other methods for creating children besides joining a sperm and an egg. Except for human cloning, which hasn’t ever been done, and more importantly HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH QUESTION 1.

“continueing to fight for full equal rights to married men and women…would devastate everyone’s equal rights, hurt the environment, divert funding away from medicine for sick people, harm children, on and on…”

Please tell me how fighting for equality will hurt the environment, take medicine away from sick people, and harm children.

(I’m starting to suspect that “John” here is a bored college student with too much time and alcohol on his hands…)

“same-sex couples should not have a right to procreate with their own genes. All methods of creating a child that do not join a man and a woman’s sperm and egg should be prohibited.

Huh? Joining a sperm and an egg is the only possible way to reproduce! As far as the situation where the sperm and egg holder are not married, the law cannot prohibit activities that go on between consenting adults. If a man consents to give his sperm to a sperm bank or to a lesbian friend to make a child for a loving couple, that child is not somehow less than if it were made by a hetero couple. Many children born to hetersexual couples are the product of rape, unhappy marriage, birth control accidents etc. And many fathers leave, leaving single mothers to raise their unwanted children. Any child who has two parents who want them and want to be involved in their day-to-day care and love them is lucky. What genes they came from and the sex or sexual orientation of these parents is of absolutely NO relevance.

“continueing to fight for full equal rights to married men and women, which would devastate everyone’s equal rights, hurt the environment, divert funding away from medicine for sick people, harm children, on and on.”

Please tell me how not allowing gays and lesbians to marry would hurt your rights (you still have the right to marry). How would it hurt the environment? More marriages = more wedding dresses = less cotton?? I’m sorry, I’m not following. How would it divert funding away from medicine? There wouldn’t be any public funding spent on gay marriages. That makes no sense. And how would it harm children? Certainly not allowing gays to marry harms their children by not giving them equal access to health care, inheritance, hospital visitation etc. Your arguments are holding less and less water.

Galena, there are other ways a lab could create a person, such as cloning, parthenogenesis, using stem-cell derived artificial gametes, using DNA synthesis, and others. I am saying they all should be prohibited and the only way that people should be created is by the joining of a man and a woman’s unmodified sperm and egg. I’m not really talking about the circumstances of them joining, whether it is by marital sex, or rape, or adultery, or sperm donation, or IVF or ICSI, it still is a natural fertilization of a woman’s egg by a man’s sperm.

You are saying that we should allow labs to create artificial sperm for a lesbian couple, or eggs for a male couple, so they can try to have a baby together, like a heterosexual couple has the right to. This would be a very costly endeavor, requiring billions of dollars of research and thousands of researchers driving to hundreds of labs burning tons of energy, to do something that ought to be able to be done in a field of grass, for free. IVF is very costly and wasteful as it is, and this is IVF plus a hundred times more.

Equating my right to procreate with a woman to my right to procreate with a man denigrates my right to procreate with a woman. Because same-sex procreation would be subject to risk assessments and might even be prohibited, and my rights would be supposedly equal to that! No, my right to procreate with my spouse should not be considered equal to the right to use someone else’s sperm or modified sperm or whatnot.

David in Houston, thank you for the “well done”, although I certainly didn’t go searching for an airtight argument, I have been opposed to genetic engineering since the 80′s and have trying to get people in the gay marriage debate to consider my concerns for years.

Yes, we need to also stop heterosexual couples from using modified genes, and the Egg and Sperm law I propose would have to specify that the egg and sperm were unmodified and represented an actual person, were “of” an actual person, rather than “from” someone and messed-around with. But even though all heterosexuals would be subject to the law against modified gametes, it wouldn’t affect their rights to use their own gametes, even if they privately didn’t have their own gametes.

I also think artificial “replacement” gametes for men who have lost their testicles and women without eggs are a bad idea, they’re a waste of our resources and would be very dangerous for the child, but at the same time that might fall under the category of medicine and might be hard to prohibit.

Chris, no there shouldn’t be an age limit or cut-off where procreation is considered unethical. Nature seems to provide its own cutoff. So elderly couples still are allowed to marry and procreate, it is never a crime if they somehow manage to produce a child, it should always be allowed for a marriage to procreate. Producing a child from same-sex parents, or other forms of genetic engineering, should be a crime, with a multi-million dollar fine and life in prison. Other countries should be sanctioned or even invaded if they harbor genetic engineering labs for making humans.

HAHAHA.

“Other countries should be sanctioned or even invaded if they harbor genetic engineering labs for making humans.”

Now there’s a reason for starting a third war…find and destroy the sodomite-run baby-cloning labs of mass destruction! Iran and China are building them as we speak!

John, seriously, why are you so worried about human cloning, and why do you think this has anything to do with question 1?

You might be interested to know that I asked three of my gay friends if they would ever even consider cloning themselves into children, if that somehow became possible, and all three of them thought it was a disgusting idea that they’d never want any part of.

You seem to have some level of intelligence, so I really am wondering why you are so certain that question 1 will result in cloning. This isn’t a legal barrier, it’s a scientific one. No one, I’m telling you no one, knows how to do this. And I haven’t seen even the most radical gay activists show an interest in this.

It’s like claiming that giving women the right to vote will result in a repressive one-world government run by evil man-hating amazons.

Question 1 won’t result in cloning. The only way to stop cloning and genetic engineering of children is with a federal law and international treaties. But same-sex marriage is incompatible with such a ban, because the ban would prohibit same-sex couples from procreating together. SSM might make it impossible to ban GE, or else it would reduce the rights of everyone’s marriage to make it possible to prohibit a marriage from procreating with their own genes.

I’m hoping to use the attention focused on Question One right now to bring the larger issues of genetic engineering and same-sex procreation to everyone’s attention.

I’m worried about it because lots of people like Nick Bostrom and his Oxford Transhumanist buddies are convinced that humanity has some great destiny to take control of our evolution and go conquer space, and I can see that if we pursue that course, it will be at great expense to people and the planet and equality, and instead we should pursue a goal of living in harmony and sustainably on this planet, preserving everyone’s natural conception rights instead of destroying them.

Yes, most gay people don’t want procreation rights, which is why it is so ridiculous to demand them. The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise would be much better for your friends.

Sarah, you don’t need to be married to raise a child or have a family. Single people can adopt or get pregnant and have homes for children. Marriage gives the right to conceive more children together, with the married couple’s own genes. The benefits you want for same-sex couples can be given with Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights” so that marriage can continue to affirm the couple’s right to procreate with their own genes without giving that right to same-sex couples who would have to use genetically modified gametes to procreate with their own genes.

We shouldn’t allow same-sex couples to procreate together, it is unloving to the child, and other children.

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3330

I think this goes beyond just redefining marriage, but free speech as well.

Those techniques are a LONG way off and do not exist at this point. There is no child who has been created this way from genetic engineering of a male egg or female sperm. And this discussion, once again has NOTHING to do with whether or not to allow gay couples to marry. Unmarried gay couples reproduce every day, as do unmarried hetero couples. Once again, NOT ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE WILL NOT STOP GAY PEOPLE FROM REPRODUCING!!! No one is trying to “equate your right to reproduce with a woman to your right to reproduce with a man.” What we are trying to do is allow my children to receive the same legal rights as children of a married committed partnership as your children would. How does my partner helping me to look after my biological children from a previous marriage with a man (who has since abandoned the children) do ANYTHING to you????

John Howard wrote:
Marriage gives the right to conceive more children together, with the married couple’s own genes.
———————
Where exactly is that right expressed in law? Getting legally married does not grant couples ‘special’ rights that let them conceive more children. How do explain unmarried couples with six children? You keep trying to tie civil marriage to conception rights as a way to deny gay couples equality. But there is no connection. Your slippery-slope “horrors of genetic engineering” argument is not a valid legal reason to ban marriage equality. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Not seeing any effects after 5 years does not mean there are no effects.

Marriage between a man and a women is how our society is supposed to be founded. There is a fundamental difference between that form of relationship–one that can parent, nurture and raise a child using the fundamental differences between men and women. To equate those differences with a fundamentally different relationship is wrong.

Galena – so you’ve been wrong, you haven’t considered procreation. Civil Unions defined as marriage minus conception rights are what you need. You are claiming the equal right to procreate that I’d have in my marriage, even if you didn’t realize it. That’s why I am here, to tell people.

Hate and judgement are not christian values.

No wonder so many people are leaving the faith!

No gay marriage will hurt mine or yours and you all know it. If you truly want to protect traditional marriage make DIVORCE illegal.

You rock Galena!

huh? I’m not saying that I don’t plan on having more children in the future with my partner. We both plan on having at least one more child. And those children won’t be any less or any different than the two we have now becuase they were created by a committed lesbian couple rather than a married hetero one.

Free speech. Her language was not hate filled. Maybe she is right maybe she is wrong. Maybe her speech is offensive or ignorant. She might be religiously repressed. She may however, be 100% right. When the Maine Campus no longer allows people to respectfully voice their opinions your concern will be warranted.
You would like to turn her voice off because you don’t agree or you find it offensive. Shame on you.
Steven Cooney

You shouldn’t be allowed to create offspring together with another woman by combining your own genes with hers. All marriages should be allowed to create offspring with their own genes.

It’s what marriage means, that the couple is allowed to have sex and procreate children together, to be one flesh, etc. Unmarried couples do it without being pronounced as having the right to do it. I am trying to deny that same-sex couples have equal rights, because same-sex couples would require genetic modification to procreate together and that would be bad public policy and bad for equal rights.

It’s not because of their orientation, it’s because of the genetic imprinting of their gametes. Combining them requires genetic engineering and it shouldn’t be equated to the right to combine your gametes with someone of the other sex, which doesn’t require genetic engineering.

John:

You’re madder than a march hare.

Please don’t hurt yourself.

you’ve been posting frequently. Nothing in the law referring to same sex marriage refers to genetic engineering. Unless you find something that does, I would suggest that others disregard your comments.

I might also remind everyone that soilent green is people, replicants are more human than human, and that robocop is the future of law enforcement.

that’s not actually what that means moron. Unmarried heterosexual couples can still have children.

Are you a troll, or are you seriously this crazy?

Right, everyone should ignore the little detail that they want the right to create genetically related offspring together using genetically engineered artificial gametes. Right, all they want is to be left alone to live as they wish, ignore the fact that they want to strip everyone’s marriage of the right to procreate by equating the right to use modified or substitute gametes to the right to use your own gametes.

It’s a fact right? Do you demand equal procreatio rights or don’t you?

John Howard:

Post a link to an article where a major figure in either No On 1 or the national gay rights movement says something close to either of the following phrases:

“We demand the right to create offspring using genetically engineered artificial gametes!”

or

“We are fighting to strip heterosexual couples of the right to procreate!”

If you can find a major gay-rights figure who obviously wants either one of those things – *obviously* wants, not just you “assuming” he/she wants – I’ll take you seriously.

Until then, you’re a troll with a tinfoil helmet. In not one of your deluded ravings did you offer any evidence that went beyond your own confused notions of what No On 1 means.

Now, I do believe your mother is yelling at you to help her take out the trash. Be a good forty-year-old-basement-tenant and go help your mother.

Ask any of them if they agree genetic engineering of children should be banned, or if hetero married couples should have more rights than same-sex couples.

This is my point: all those major figures are lying when they pretend they are only fighting for hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. All the things they say they don’t actually want, or they would accept the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, which gives them all those things much faster than their plan, and with much less strife and division. No, what they really want is equal procreation rights, both by lowering a man and woman’s down to their right to use modified gametes or substitute gametes, and by raising theirs up to a married man and womans right to use their own (yes, that’s contradictory, but they want them both).

So if national civil-rights leaders don’t accept a fictitious legal arrangement proposed by an anonymous crackpot on the internet, they’re planning on creating frankenbabies and prohibiting straight people from having children?

That’s not proof. That’s like insisting Martians control the US Government, based on the fact that Obama has never said “I hereby decree that Martians will never control the US Government”.

I’ll repeat what I said: give us actual links to nationally known figures stating examples of what I posted above, or stop making a fool of yourself.

who’s they? no the the no on one folks. Find me one document to prove it. I think we should ignore the fact that you’re leaving comments.

Unlike Martians, there is currently actual research into stem-cell derived gametes and people are claiming the right to attempt same-sex procreation using whatever means might be available to them. It is real, not fictitious. Anyone can google “female sperm” or “postgenderism” or “Transhumansim” and see that they are serious about this. I’m not the one bringing up the issue of procreation rights for same-sex couples, tons of people are claiming equal rights as a man and a woman, including all the rights of marriage, and procreation is one of them.

The reason they don’t mention it is because they are purposefully trying to sneak it in on us, in a very controlled strategy. “They” being the eugenicists and feminists and postgenderists who are lawyers and biotech and fertility industry workers and who seek to control the future of reproduction, just like they have been trying to do since Francis Galton’s and Margeret Sanger’s and Adolph Hitler’s day.

Actually, all that research is just a distraction set up by the Martians so you won’t notice them infiltrating the government.

The reason they don’t mention this is because they are trying to sneak it in on you in a very controlled strategy. “They” being the congresspeople and senators and lawmakers who are Martians, and who seek to control the future of the United States. Just like they’ve been trying to do since Fox Mulder’s and Adolph Hitler’s day.

This is real, not fictitious.

Can you read? Same-sex couples should not have the same right to procreate together using their own genes that all married couples have always had and should always have.

OK, try telling everyone your position on same-sex procreation rights: Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to try to create biologically related offspring together?

What, are you truly ignorant of the real possibility of genetic engineering and same-sex conception and the actual people who want to be allowed to create people with modified genes, or are you being an asshole? Either way you look pretty small and stupid.

John, every single person who’s responded to you is highly doubtful that there is any “real possibility” of mad homosexual scientists engineering their offspring. Also, I’m being an asshole.

I’ve told you what I want to see as far as your proving your case. All you’ve done is shriek the same half-baked suppositions over and over again.

I am bored. You amuse me. How long do you want to continue this?

There are thousands of children waiting for foster and adoptive families. Are you saying society would be HURT by us helping??

No, hasn’t it become clear by now that I am only talking about using genetically modified artificial gametes to enable same-sex procreation? That should not be allowed. Adoption law wouldn’t change. Adoption is not a right of marriage anyhow, single people can adopt, and married couples can be told they are not fit to adopt.

Chris, you want an example of a major gay-rights figure saying either:

“We demand the right to create offspring using genetically engineered artificial gametes!”

or

“We are fighting to strip heterosexual couples of the right to procreate!”

They are all asking for equal rights, Chris. Equal to a married male-female couple. Now, do you agree or deny that a married male-female couple has a right to conceive offspring together, combining their genes to create biological progeny? If you deny that, then you are stripping the right to procreate from them. If you agree they do, then you are saying that a same-sex couple also has the right to create offspring together, which happens to require genetically engineered artificial gametes.