Video: Gore Supports Same-Sex Marriage

What our presidential candidates should be saying when asked if they support gay marriage:

Aaron Toleos

Comments

[John]

That is great news, mamcwifey.

Thanks for passing that along.

[John Howard]

Thanks mamcwifey. I subscribed to New Scientist to get at that article, maybe I'll post it on eggandsperm for discussion and educational purposes. It's interesting that in England, it seems to be already outlawed by the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, so they are considering amending the law to allow stem cell derived gametes, but they won't go all the way to trying to get an opposite sex gamete, they are only considering growing sperm for a male and eggs for a female.

But in England, same-sex couples have federal recognition and equal protections with the Civil Partnership Act.

But here, we don't got no federal recognition or equal protections, and yet same-sex conception is allowed. See? That's the deal you should be seeking, not insisting on being allowed to do something that might never be possible.

[John]

"But in England, same-sex couples have federal recognition and equal protections with the Civil Partnership Act."

Because the UK does not have a Federalist system.

[John Howard]

No, it's because they drew the line at conception rights. You guys aren't drawing any fucking lines and it's holding you back, because you are being crazy. You actually are trying to say that you should have the right to use totally unsafe and offensive experimental genetic engineering to have a child with someone of the same sex. They aren't saying that in England. It's not about their layers of Government, it's about their Common Sense.

[John]

"You actually are trying to say that you should have the right to use totally unsafe and offensive experimental genetic engineering..."

Well, if it is YOU who gets to decide what is safe and what is offensive, then I suppose that I have to plead guilty.

[the TRUE patriot]

...
Whats wrong with genetic engineering? Only reason to not want it is if you like people on earth suffering over disease. You do realize, that all medicine is or was at one point, experimental?
All the breeds of dogs, horses, etc, that we have are indeed genetic engineering of a sort. WE bred them and bred them to be what we want. Its evolution AND genetic engineering. Great ain't it?

[ryan charisma]

I DON'T CARE.

[John Howard]

TP, that's not great for people, because people aren't dogs.

We don't breed people, people mutually, consensually choose someone they love and intend to live with forever, and the genes of the children are randomly put together from the four grandparent's genes. It's true that cultural factors like racism influence people's choices, and sometimes evil people have even coerced people, but we consider human "breeding" to be completely offensive to Love and dignity. That you even bring up dogs and breeding is an example of how bad this idea is, how misanthropic and degrading.

Plus, genetic engineering is not going to eliminate disease. First of all, to achieve "elimination" means you'd have to intervene before EVERY pregnancy, you'd have to "eliminate" natural conception. That can't be done unless everyone is sterilized. All that would happen is that SOME people, rich and privileged probably, would have their genes screened and improved, while poor people without access continued to have diseases. And these would be germ-line fixes affecting future generations, whereas other disparities of rich and poor can be overcome, they aren't built in to the genome. Ugh, can't you see how racist and ugly this is? Also, generally we don't like how unfair these disparities are, and we try to minimize them and create ways for people to overcome them, like providing health care for the poor and education, we don't try to create more that will reinforce the disparities.

Second, even if you did the genetic engineering on every child born, it wouldn't necessarily work to eiminate that disease, and it doesn't even mean there will be less of it, or certainly of diseases in general. It could INCREASE diseases, like IVF increases birth defects and disorders significantly. So add to the risk of IVF the extra risk of GE: using maniplulated genes, or using modified gametes derived from viral-vector-pluripotent adult stem cells is definitely going to carry a huge risk, every animal experiment has a huge, unacceptable fatality rate so far, unacceptable even for animals.

There is a basic difference between medicine, which treats people, and manufacture, which creates people. Every breath we take could be considered medicine, living itself is trying to do things to stay alive. Eating food, and knowing the right food to eat, is medicine, and even that was experimental at one time (it even still is). So obviously there is no place to draw the line on things existing people do for themselves, virtually everything we do is experimental medicine to some degree.

Creating people is not medicine, sex or pregnancy or birth has never been considered medicine, it even is quite unhealthy sometimes. And doing it in a petri dish is not any healthier, it increases risk to both mother and child (the father avoids his few health risks).

Have you read Enough by Bill McKibben yet?

[John Howard]

John, I just want the public and Congress to make the determination of whether it is offensive or unsafe. We certainly can't let one crazy Doctor or profit driven lab or selfish crazy couple make that determination.

Tell me, why is a biological connection necessary to have a fully loving, real family, John? Why is it more important than equal protections for real families.

Seems to me the only person here at KTN with a a family already has equal protections and federal recognition, so maybe you guys are all just self serving.

[John]

I don't want the public, which consists of mostly morons, or the Congress which consists entirely of morons, to be making decisions about what is ethical or dangerous.

I will leave that to the consensus of the scientific community.

The selfish crazy couple is entitled to decide for themselves what is ethical.

It is offensive for you to say to me that I believe a biological connection is required to have a real family because you know full well that is not my position.

Yes, I have a family with full federal protections and I want nothing more than for all my gay and lesbian friends to have precisely what I have.

[John Howard]

The way to give your gay friends equal federal protection is to stop insisting that same-sex conception remain legal. They don't need that to have a real family, you occasionally agree, and occasionally imply that such a thing is entirely unacceptable and same-sex conception must be allowed so they can have a real family.

It's offensive to all adopted kids, it's offensive to all blended families, step children, etc, to even whistfully desire same-sex conception.

[John]

"They don't need that to have a real family, you occasionally agree, and occasionally imply that such a thing is entirely unacceptable and same-sex conception must be allowed so they can have a real family."

Are you willfully misrepresenting my position or are you just too stupid to understand?

[John Howard]

I think that about you. You cannot be for allowing same-sex biological parenting without implying that there must be something valid about wanting biological offspring. And even though those biological offspring are going to be costly for society and at great risk of birth defects, it still must be somehow worth it to pursue biological children rather than settle for adoption or some other method that families are created today. How can you not see how insulting and demeaning it is to say that?

[John]

"You cannot be for allowing same-sex biological parenting without implying that there must be something valid about wanting biological offspring"

Then, you truly are too stupid to understand.

Listen, each individual chooses for him/herself what constitutes their family. Some, I know a few, have a strong desire for biological children, others care not one whit and would just as soon adopt.

I make no judgment on the validity of each families decision, but I will defend the right of all to choose.

[John Howard]

you are defending the validity of choosing something that is deeply offensive to adoptive families, and that is in itself offensive to adoptive families. The non-offensive position is to tell people that are enamored of attempting this to have biological children that Love Makes A Family, they don't need to have biological children, and they shouldn't push for something so unnecessary and offensive to adoptive families. Heck, the same is true of hetero couples using IVF rather than adopting, the whole industry sends a strong message to adoptive kids that their family is not optimal, it is not what people aspire to. The only way to affirm that adoptive families are in fact perfectly desirable is to ban the industry that undermines that position. But, it is impossible to ban IVF because of marital and medical privacy, so unfortunately that message is still sent, but it should be countered and opposed, not clung to and built upon.

[John]

"... The only way to affirm that adoptive families are in fact perfectly desirable is to ban the industry that undermines that position"

Oh really?

[John Howard]

Well, certainly not to oppose a ban. Opposing a ban, and refusing to admit that people who reject adoption and choose dangerous alternatives are being offensive to adoptive families - is offensive to adoptive families. It's like saying that people have a right to be racist landlords or not hire gays, isn't that offensive? Isn't it offensive to refuse to criticize or try to correct them?

[John]

You must be easily offended. There are a fair number of adoptions in my family and not even one is offended by others choosing a different path.

[John Howard]

That's not exactly what I meant by "offensive", I mean it has a general effect of working against the notion that love makes a family, it undermines the efforts of people to integrate blended and step families together. It plays into the hands of people who insist that biology is essential to be "real" parents.

By the way, I just discovered a pro-SSP website called www.samesexprocreation.com and an article I haven't read yet about women being the sole gender in the future. I'm glad someone else is out there talking about this finally.

[John]

"it undermines the efforts of people to integrate blended and step families together."

How?

The world is not same huge gigantic puzzle in which every piece must fit. Rather their are many different ways to view the world, and for the most part, all are valid.

A few years ago, my company lost its engineer to greener pastures. We found one candidate who as a perfect fit for our company, but he refused our offer because he and his wife were beginning fertility treatment for which our health insurance would not pay.

Personally, I find that strange. If it were my wife and I in that boat, I know I would just buy a baby.

But for this couple, that biological connection meant everything.

Who am I, and who are you, to pass judgment on their values?

[Lula]

Guys, just to interject something.

Check out Romney's website...he's actually shouting out loud and proud that he's won Rick Santorum's endorcement...and it's front page news at his campaign website!!!

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/ICYMI_Ingraham_Santorum_2.1

[John]

It is a sad day when an endorsement from Rick Santorum is something to brag about.

[Lula]

It is pathetic.

[Mark]

I'm glad he's in favor of marriage rights, but the shameful monogamous talk he had to throw in there was unnecessary.