Good As You

Why is it that when these people are called out as liars, it doesn't seem to bother them?

Are they so brainwashed that they believe that breaking one of their own ten commandments is okay if it serves their interpretation of religion, which they really only use for hiding-behind purposes?

I think so.

Baseless claims, outright lies...but it's all being done in Jesus's name...

ugh, I need a sabbatical from the retards in this country, like, maybe forever.

Here is exactly why same sex marriage needs to be legal: even hetero's are being discriminated against. They also need the right to marry someone of the same sex!

Hi folks. First of all, it's important to hang on to the right for everyone to marry someone of the other sex, that is a gay right, too.

As to marrying someone of the same sex, it should not be allowed because same-sex conception is unethical, and all marriages should have a right to conceive children using their own genes. You object to illogical arguments "like the idea that marriage is "about children," even though (a) kids are not a marital requirement and (b) gay folks also raise children" but you are leaving out the way that marriage truly is about children: it is the right to conceive children. All marriages should have it, none should ever be prohibited by law from attempting to create children of the marriage. But every person should be prohibited from attempting to create children except by combining their unmodified genes with someone else's unmodified genes with whom it would be ethical to conceive. We should not be allowed to conceive with our sister or brother or father or mother, or dog or kitten, or anyone of the same sex. We should only be allowed to conceive with someone of the same sex.

Please don't waste too much time fighting against this argument. I'll move us to the end game right now: you have to either say that same-sex conception should be allowed, or you have to say that marriage should be changed so that it no doesn't protect the couple's right to have children together. OK, those are legitimate positions that many people hold, but they are weak positions that make the world worse and don't improve lives for gay people.

I suggest that rather than insist on same-sex conception and (and turn yourselves into pawns for the big-bio eugenicsts and genetic engineers and transhumanists who want to control everyone's genomes and limit who can reproduce), you instead investigate what might be gained from eschewing same-sex conception rights. Please go to my website and look at the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, which is the best plan to get equal protections to same-sex couples across the country ASAP.

to John Howard: I cant get to your site right now from work, but I do have this question for you: What?

OK I just found a workaround that got me to John Howard's website... Are you serious? I want to be married so I can have a commitment with the one I love, and all the protections and responsibilities that a legal marriage would come with. NOT so I can have a baby made in a test tube that blends my DNA with my partners like some weird genetic experiment... These two issues are not related…Just weird...

Yes, I had the right to marry a woman, and I did to satisfy my church and family, but it was not a happy marriage and while it looked good from the outside, was nothing but sadness and lonliness for both my wife and I. However, it is good to knowthat my marriage was helping uphold the sanctity of heterosexual marriage which is also about faking happiness so that others don't have to think about men marrying men. I guess some good came from my marriage after all.

As hard as it was coming out and telling my family I am gay and getting a divorce, I still chuckle to myself that what made my marriage of 12 years not valid to my father was finding out the marriage was never consummated. Maybe I should have asked for am annulment.

On an interesting note, the LDS church would still consider us married as we never went through the church process to undo our temple sealing.

Randy, yes, that's my whole point! Please support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise!

No John I don’t think you understand, using a bio-ethic argument as a way to disallow gay marriage is just goofy. Yes it is bigoted to use this argument because you are basing your argument on the idea that the LGBT community is going to start illegal genetic experiments and eugenic wars if we are allowed to marry. Jeremy sorry for hijacking this thread, but am I the only one who finds this strange?

Holy Crap. I went over and read the WND article and it made me feel like I needed a shower. . .Then I come to the comments and see this John Howard Nutbag. . . .WTF?

Ms. Chastain speaks reams about herself in her comments. If she is happy with a loveless, sexless marriage (and after looking at her picture I've come to the conclusion that she may have no other choice), then she certainly has that option. And, now she could even marry a woman in Massachusetts or California, if she is so inclined.

But, as she said, she cannot marry her cat. Much as she may want to, and as much as it may be the only living creature on the planet that will give her any warmth and affection, it simply wouldn't be fair to the pussy. And, for the record, gay men like cats because they are intelligent and funny. And to have a beautiful pussy around, but not to fuck one. That's a Steve Martin joke about straight men.

Randy, you've chosen End Game #2, where you are saying that marriage should not protect the couple's right to conceive children together. You seem to accept that same-sex conception should not be allowed. Did you know that currently it is legal to attempt same-sex conception, it is not illegal yet. I am trying to get Congress to enact a ban on the use of modified gametes so that all people are created equal, as the natural child of their mother and father. The ban would prevent hetero couples as well as same-sex couples from using modified gametes, but where it would protect and affirm a hetero couple's right to conceive children using their own genes, it would prohibit a same-sex couple from using their own genes. That would happen whether the couple was married or not.

Here is a good time to ask if you would support such a law, or if you are also going to claim End Game #1 ?

Assuming you are sticking to your guns and accept that same-sex conception will be and should be illegal, then you're at End Game #2, and are stripping marriage - all marriages - of the right to use their own genes to conceive children together. If you try to say that both-sex and same-sex couples should have equal rights, then you are saying that a married man and woman have the same right to conceive together that a man and a woman do, which is, none. That's needlessly harming marriage and everyone's civil rights. Why not accept that both-sex couples should have a right that same-sex couples should not, and then see where that can get us?

I'm telling you, accepting that can get us to federal recognition of civil unions that offer all the rights of marriage except the right to conceive together. By agreeing to a distinction between civil unions and marriage that preserves the essence of marriage, we could make amazing progress on civil unions, that would improve the lives of thousands of couples that are without any protections right now.

Maybe I am not quite getting this. If I were to follow John Howards logic, does that mean the my aunt (woman) and Uncle (man) are NOT really married, or at least shouldn't be. They have been married for MANY years, yet don't have any children (by choice). If marriage is to create children, then my aunt/uncle must not REALLY be married, rather just living together.

aj

John Howard, are you married? Is this your first marriage? Fifth? Mistress on the side, maybe? Maybe you live with your girlfriend? Boyfriend? Maybe you have several children out of wedlock? One of them may even be multi-racial? Maybe you want the right to formalize your union with your cat?

You are here trying to make a stupid argument out of a moot one about our lives, but haven't told us anything about you and your life. Maybe you're a polygamist? Probably just another sexless, loveless marriage with two dogs and a cold fish.

John I am going to try and say this as respectfully as I can because I get the sense that this is something you are very passionate about. I appreciate that in your own way you seem to be arguing that if the LGBT community got full marriage rights and they made same sex conception illegal, the community would lose some of their equal rights to conception. However I think you are attaching this issue to gay marriage only to get support to get it press. There is no connection between achieving marriage equality and achieving what I guess you would call conception-equality. You are preying on the fears of the un-natural and attributing that to the homosexual community. There are several scientific studies that point to a natural reason for homosexuality and its existence in nature. I would ask someone else to chime in on “conception rights” as I am unsure on the existence or applicability of said rights as formal law. I would also like to make it clear that I am not against controlled and ethical research into stem cells and genetics, and would argue that this country needs to expand its acceptance of these issues.

I was working on this when I felt the need to respond faster to johns latest post, but I still wanted to post it.
John this is from your website in the FAQ section:

What about same-sex marriage?

If we prohibit labs from attempting to create children that are not the union of a woman's egg and a man's sperm, then same-sex marriages will not have a right to conceive children together, which would fundamentally change marriage and put all of our conception rights in jeopardy. To protect our right to have children, we need to preserve marriage's right to conceive children together. Civil unions could be created that have all of the other rights of marriage, but not the right to conceive children together. With this distinction between marriage and civil unions, which would match the distinction between the rights of same-sex and both-sex couples, it will probably be much easier to get federal recognition for same-sex civil unions, as well as get civil unions enacted in all 50 states. This would benefit same-sex couples much more than having a right to conceive children together using genetic engineering. We should push for this compromise solution.

I will leave the idea or actuality of “Conception rights” to someone far more qualified to answer because I am not even sure if they exist and to what extent they have any relationship to married folks since there are many people conceiving without marriage.
You seem to misunderstand that, as I said before, our community wants to be married to enjoy the responsibilities, protection, and benefits of the civil definition of marriage. My confusion, or better put, one of my confusions with your idea is why not just work to make the conception of genetically modified human embryos illegal, and actually there already are some pretty hefty regulations on that to begin with. Assuming you really believe what you are saying, you also fail to understand the dynamic of the “pro-family” movement; they don’t want the LGBT community to have any recognized unions, so now this distinction would not have any effect other than de-humanizing the LGBT community. And let me also go out on a limb and say that there is no credible movement in the LGBT community that is pushing for eugenic rights, as a matter of fact I think you will find the same spread of opinions about your issue in the LGBT community as you would find in the general population. Please rethink your argument, by using this rational you do not come across as a credible or even sober individual.

Randy: I've run into Howard John before. His entire claim is based on some bogus notion that marriage confers the "right to conceive." The problem is, this idea has no actual basis in law.

Those who do argue for the existence of a "right to conceive" (or reproductive rights in general) do so on the basis that reproduction is a natural function of our own bodies and therefore should not be prohibited (or mandated) by government. Indeed, the idea that one would have to get married in order to exercise one's reproductive rights is generally viewed as an unethical government intrusion in personal matters.

aj - your aunt and uncle have a right to conceive children together. They don't have to if they don't want to, or if they can't. But they certainly have the right to. People shouldn't have that right with someone of the same sex.

Dick, I don't think it is a stupid argument. I'm trying to preserve natural conception rights so that no one is prohibited from conceiving with their own genes, and I'm trying to use the marriage debate to do so. It's very important that marriage continues to protect the couple's right to conceive together, and that people understand that reproducing is a right that we all only have with someone of the other sex. Note that this also represents the best way to achieve equal protections for same-sex couples. The only thing same-sex couples give up is the right to try something that probably cannot be done anyhow. The only difference between a marriage and civil union would be that CU's were prohibited from attempting to conceive. You could say they are marriages and check the box for "married", because for all other purposes they would be marriages - just not officially on that piece of paper back at city hall.

John, people have been fucking and conceiving since fucking and conceiving became possible. And nothing is ever going to stop that from happening. Claiming that it will happen is moronic at best.

And, if anything, marriage originated from the necessity to ensure that the fathers (and at the time, best breadwinners) of those otherwise bastard children and their mothers were provided for. And a lot of those "marriages" were forged at the end of a club or other lethal weapon. Many of those notions are passé now as the bastard children of those deadbeat dads can demand and receive support, not to mention that women now have many more career opportunities and can support themselves.

Marriage has nothing to do with the "right to conceive" and nothing to do with god or ethics or motherland. It is all to do with responsibility and the respect that comes with responsibility. That is why we demand the right to marry, and the respect that that responsibility conveys. In every way we behave as "married" couples, but with out marriage we are not held as responsible and not granted the respect due to that responsibility.

Attempts to foist your own stupid notions as a reason to deny us that are nothing more than desperate lunacy.

Dick: All marriages should be allowed to conceive children together. Same-sex couples should NOT be allowed to conceive children together. Either directly refute one or both of those points, or accept that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. Refuting those points, btw, would take the form of saying "marriages do not have a right to conceive children together" or "same-sex couples should be allowed to conceive children together".

Your logic is flawed, John. Marriage is not about children, it is about responsibility to children and your spouse. You can have children and be responsible to them without marriage. But you can't have a spouse and be equally as responsible to the spouse without marriage. Any contrivance otherwise is just stupidity.

Dick, CU's will do that, they will bind the couple to each other and not allow them to abandon each other by moving to an adjacent state. The only difference between CU's and marriage is they would not allow the couple to conceive children together. All marriages should continue to guarantee the right to conceive together. The Egg and Sperm Civil Union compromise will get CU's with truly equal protections (except for conception rights) to thousands of same-sex couples immediately. It is hurtful of you to hold out for conception rights instead, please step back and think about it.

All people should have a right with someone of the other sex that they should not have with someone of their same sex. That right is the sine qua non of marriage.

Look into the compromise. Help out Obama.

The California Supreme Court disagrees with you John, and so does anyone with an open mind. And a marriage license only gives one the right to marry a spouse. If a license were needed to have children then there would be a lot fewer of the little buggers running around.

Obviously you have closed your mind to the truth, and persist in your stupidity. No one else is buying it. End of discussion.

Actually, I agree with the CA decision. Keep in mind that same-sex conception is currently legal, and there was no distinction between marriage and CA CU's. So yes, that is just invidious discrimination in order to place a stigma on same-sex couples. The CA court didn't say that same-sex couples should have all the rights of marriage, however, only that as long as they do, it should be called marriage. They did not address same-sex conception or the possibility that it would be banned by a state or federal law, but they left open the possibility that there could be such a law.

Are you really having trouble or are you purposefully diverting attention away from my point? We aren't talking about unmarried conception, which is irrelevant. We are talking about prohibiting same-sex conception whether the couple is married or not, and preserving the right of all marriages to conceive, and therefore having to prohibit same-sex marriage and offer CU's instead.

Those CU's, which would have an important and meaningful distinction, would be constitutional in CA, no doubt about it.

John Howard: When did you become a nutball?

John Howard, lets suppose you get your civil unions that prohibit conception for same-sex couples. What do you propose be done when those couples conceive anyway? Would you require abortions? Or, what if the conception wasn't discovered until after the child's birth? Would you propose the unthinkable? Would you send the parents to prison? Or, what exactly would you propose?

Are you really serious about all this? If so, I have to say it falls within the realm of fruitcake territory.

I almost don't want to encourage this guy, but I have to ask: Am I missing something? What is there about the legality of same-sex marriage that would prohibit opposite-sex marriage partners from having kids? And where on EARTH is there any legal language that links marriage with the right to conceive children?

Conceiving children isn't a right. It's a fact of life. It happened long before the institution of marriage, it happens frequently now without marriage, and it will continue if all the religions and all the laws of all the nations on earth evaporate.

And maybe I'm missing something else, but I haven't yet heard one gay person bring a pet or a close relative to City Hall anyplace and demand a marriage license. And you'd better believe that if that happened, it would be all over the press. So I'm going out on a limb here and will say that it hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen.

A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Hey, can anyone remember the name of the gay comedian who said something like, "If you heteros will just let us be gay, we promise not to marry any of you."

John Howard (AKA "Locke") has been spewing this prohibiting same-sex conception crap for quite a while. Recently at Pam's House Blend the trap door was finally opened for this troll and he's been banned from her site. Guess he had to find another place to spew.

John Howard, lets suppose you get your civil unions that prohibit conception for same-sex couples. What do you propose be done when those couples conceive anyway?

Well, there'd also be a federal law that prohibited labs from attempting to create a person that isn't from a man and a woman's unmodified gametes. That law would have serious penalties against the scientists and labs and also the contracting parents, like million dollar fines and/or 10 years in jail, just for trying it. As to what happens to the person conceived, it depends on what is done with the embryo. If it's not yet implanted, i propose that it be flushed down the drain. If it's implanted but has not yet come to life, which happens when the heart starts pumping blood, I think an abortificant is called for. If it has come to life (about five weeks in) then it's too late to prevent its birth, but I think it should be separated form its parents and raised anonymously in some sort of baby-protection program where no one knows its origins except its doctors.

Would you require abortions?

Not after five weeks, or heartbeat. But before that, yes, it's called for. It's not necessary of course, it's not essential that we abort embryos that get implanted, we could treat them all as if they have come to life and merely separate them from their parents and give them to loving parents instead. Parents that would intentionally subject their children to experimental risks are by definition unfit, unloving parents.

Or, what if the conception wasn't discovered until after the child's birth? Would you propose the unthinkable? Would you send the parents to prison? Or, what exactly would you propose?

Parents and doctors to prison, baby off to loving family.

Are you really serious about all this? If so, I have to say it falls within the realm of fruitcake territory.

Very serious. Not sure what fruitcake means, I think it is crazy to allow genetic engineering, I can't believe people are being so irresponsible.

What is there about the legality of same-sex marriage that would prohibit opposite-sex marriage partners from having kids?

It doesn't prohibit them all, right away, but it implies that a marriage could be prohibited if the state decided to, unless we declare that same-sex conception is a right of same-sex marriages. But usually people don't quite claim that, they instead just say "we'll deal with that later, and maybe we'll ban it, but it separate from marriage". But saying that says that marriage has no inherent protected right to use their own genes, if they have the same right as same-sex couples, who cannot use their own genes and have to use modified genes or improved donor genes.

The thing that makes sense is to recognize that people have the right to conceive only with someone of the other sex, so that both sexes are required and so that all people are created equal and from unmodified genes, the actual genes of their mother and father. Recognize that means there are different rights between a man and a woman than between two men or two women. Recognize that the right is the sine qua non of marriage.

And where on EARTH is there any legal language that links marriage with the right to conceive children?

All marriages have always had a right to conceive children. Couples that are not allowed to conceive are not allowed to marry. Find me one marriage that was prohibited by law from having children together? It's never happened before, and it shouldn't be allowed to start happening.

This John Howard character reminds me of Heaven's Gate. I've been lolwutting all over this page.