The media plays along, serving the pre-packaged story, and other pro-SSM groups play along, conspiring to establish the Kochtopus groups as legitimate social conservatives, knowing they are libertarians pretending to be social conservatives, funded by the Kochtopus and gagged by their funding contracts.
It’s easy to catch them in contradictions like how "What Is Marriage?" logically means fathers and daughters should be able to marry because they have the ability to form "bodily union" and procreate, because they are forced to make arguments that further their mission to separate conception rights from marriage, the connection of which is why fathers cannot marry daughters. It's also easy to spot them when they refuse to support any bans on genetic engineering children or making same-sex offspring, or any laws that preserve the conception rights of marriage.
Basically, their mission is to drown out my argument, and eventually lose the marriage debate, coming away instead with victory in the form of religious freedom to do whatever transhumanist nutso things they want to do and a weakened federal government that can’t stop them.
We need to ask @RyanT_Anderson and @Joe_LaRue and virtually everyone else on Twitter arguing for traditional marriage if they think marriages should have a right to procreate offspring, and if they think people have a right to attempt to procreate with someone of the same sex. I think it would be surprising to most people, to learn that they agree with gay marriage advocates about procreation rights. They all oppose the two objectives of the Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act I am pushing, the federal law that would actually end same-sex marriage by prohibiting creating a human being using cloning or genetically modifying or from same sex progenitors, and would protect the procreation rights of marriages to have natural children together using their own gametes. It seems to me to be a criminal treasonous conspiracy that needs to be exposed and defeated.
Right, we should ignore scientists when discussing moral and legal definitions. I mean, we should rely on science to help us make policy choices, like say banning harmful drugs or pollutants, but not for judgements like what is good, or when people acquire rights. July 9 2014 19:32
I think all intentional conception of humans is unethical, especially involving instruments and manipulation of embryos and gametes. I agree with the Catholic church that IVF is gravely immoral, and children should be seen as gifts and responsibilities, not accoutrements to serve the parents. July 9 2014 19:21
Oh, and yes it sounds familiar, it sounds like you and others that pompously claim "science" has anything to do with what is a legal and moral subject. July 9 2014 19:11
People shouldn't be able to "earn an exemption" from any law due to having a belief. If we wanted to allow ceremonial religious use of peyote, just freakin allow it, don't enforce the law, rely on the discretion of the mayor and police. July 9 2014 18:05
It'd be nice to be able to read PhoenixM's comments. Did a moderator delete them? judging by the replies to them, they were substantial serious comments that people took time to respond to. July 9 2014 16:33
I'm against Transhumanism and genetic engineering of designer babies and commodification and trafficking of babies. I don't want people to think that there is an obligation to implant embryos, or that anyone has a right to implant an embryo. July 9 2014 16:16
Once a pregnancy has begun, ending it is an evil act, and contraception is evil, but so is creating embryos on purpose and so is implanting embryos. An IUD doesn't kill babies, Plan B doesn't kill babies, they reduce the chance of pregnancies that might not even happen anyway. It no more ends a life than failing to have sex and get every woman pregnant at every opportunity does, or failing to take extraordinary means to ensure that every pregnancy results in birth. July 9 2014 16:13
Thanks, but teaching is frustratingly hard, and doesn't pay very well. July 9 2014 16:04
Well, Justice Kennedy affirmed in Lawrence that marriage is about the right to have sexual intercourse, and no one has ever claimed there is a right outside of marriage to have sexual intercourse or beget children (no not Eisenstadt, which only said unmarried people have a right to use contraception and to make decisions about whether to bear or beget a child, but they have to get married to have the right to bear or beget a child.) Or are you asking for a source that there is no right to implant an embryo? Well I can't cite a source for something that doesn't exist, no one has ever claimed a right to implant an embryo. How about you cite a source that there is a right to implant an embryo or marry a corporation. July 9 2014 16:03
I disagree with her that an IUD ends a human life that has begun, because life begins at heartbeat and blood. Until then embryos are alive only in the sense that plants are alive, and are not yet alive with spirit and soul or will or consciousness and therefore are not killed and do not die a death when they stop growing. The die like a plant dies, it just stops functioning and dissolves into compost but does not suffer pain or loss. July 9 2014 15:57
More than just that, they are claiming to be exempt from laws that compel them to support destruction of embryos. That's why I am saying that they don't have a right to implant embryos, just because they believe them to be alive with a right to be implanted doesn't mean we have to let them do that. July 9 2014 15:35
I agree people should not be forced to pay for Plan B or Ella or any contraception. (Well, I do think Plan B should be given to victims of rape as part of standard rape treatment. And they shouldn't be given the erroneous propaganda that it would be aborting a baby, it would only be preventing implantation, "shutting the whole thing down" as Akin said women's bodies are able and allowed to do and have a right to do. In fact, a woman shouldn't be given a choice about it, since the soul has a right not to be ensouled in body that is a victim of rape if we can prevent it. We should do everything possible to make sure babies can be cared for by their genetic mother and father. Once pregnancy starts, of course, it is too late, the baby already exists. But an embryo isn't a baby and a woman is not pregnant until implantation. You don't think that implanting an embryo in a woman puts that woman at risk? It most certainly does. It also puts the baby at risk. There would be risk, no death, no loss of life and no suffering or pain to simply let the embryo dissolve without implanting. It's what happens in nature all the time. July 9 2014 15:26
The embryo isn't a person, no one would notice that it did not become a person. People that don't exist do not exist. July 9 2014 14:33
I can accept saying an embryo is alive, but not that it is ensouled or has a right to be implanted. Thousands of embryos do not implant and it is not considered a death or even unhealthy, and no religion has ever said death occurs when no pregnancy happens after sex. Yeah, tell me what happens if I am wrong? What if unimplanted embryos are ensouled, and we don't implant them? Then I guess the soul goes to hell, but God must have wanted that to happen and there was nothing we could have done to thwart God's will. At least it won't have cost us any money and put women and children at risk of harm, which is what implanting embryos does. July 9 2014 14:31
We don't need science to demonstrate soul or consciousness, they are mystical, spiritual and moral concepts. Can science demonstrate concepts like "legal" and "right" and "person" or "good"? Of course not, we don't ask science to tell us right and wrong, legal and illegal. July 9 2014 14:20
Hobby Lobby can think whatever they want to think, they can't claim a right to implant an embryo or create a human being. Only a marriage has that right, and you still can't marry a corporation. July 9 2014 14:18
Things can be alive in the sense a plant is alive, without consciousness or soul or will. Pre-ensouled embryos develop and grow by God's or Nature's design, not their own will which beats their hearts and animates their brains, and therefore there needs to be a heart and brain to beat and animate before a soul can move in. Sleeping people still have beating hearts and animated brains, but dead people do not (but even dead people are to be respected and not experimented on or exploited). July 9 2014 14:17
Pro-life people should stick to religion. Science has no value judgements about what constitutes life, or when something acquires rights. There is no right to implant an embryo. July 9 2014 13:44
It can be alive in the sense that a plant is alive. But it is not ensouled and is not killed when it fails to implant, it just doesn't keep growing and dissolves, like mustard seeds that find no fertile soil to take root. July 9 2014 13:43
The soul is ensouled after the body has implanted and developed a heart, the beating of the heart signifies life, just like the soul departs when the heart stops beating. Embryos that do not implant do not become ensouled. If nature is allowed to take its course on embryos created in a petri dish, the cells will divide a few times and then stop dividing. They need to be implanted, which is not letting nature take its course at all. In nature, no embryos are ever implanted in a body from outside the body. An unimplanted embryo is not alive and is not a person and should be allowed to dissolve and cease to exist. It should not be implanted, there is no right to implant an embryo.