Comments on: The Procreation Imperative http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/ Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:47:01 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Howard http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/comment-page-1/#comment-181932 John Howard Wed, 28 May 2008 20:27:50 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/#comment-181932 Hey Terrence, it's been a year since I posted my comment above - have you responded anywhere, in another post perhaps? What are your views regarding same-sex conception, do you insist on a right to try, or would you agree that people should only be allowed to conceive with someone of the other sex? By accepting that limit, we could achieve a consensus on how to resolve the marriage debate so that same-sex couples get federal recognition and equal protections in all <i>other</i> areas except conception rights. Looking forward to hearing your views. Hey Terrence, it’s been a year since I posted my comment above – have you responded anywhere, in another post perhaps? What are your views regarding same-sex conception, do you insist on a right to try, or would you agree that people should only be allowed to conceive with someone of the other sex? By accepting that limit, we could achieve a consensus on how to resolve the marriage debate so that same-sex couples get federal recognition and equal protections in all other areas except conception rights. Looking forward to hearing your views.

]]> By: Scott http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/comment-page-1/#comment-80358 Scott Sun, 15 Apr 2007 04:59:01 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/#comment-80358 Spot on, Terrance. The archbishop's view seems quite prescient for the time. Striking. Spot on, Terrance.

The archbishop’s view seems quite prescient for the time. Striking.

]]> By: Lee http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/comment-page-1/#comment-80270 Lee Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:07:49 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/#comment-80270 "Once marriage came to be seen as an institution bringing together two individuals based on mutual affection and equality...." This, of course, is the myth foisted by the marriage deconstructionists on an uninformed public, or a public whose sexual and social education came primarily from Hollywood movies and Harlequin Romance novels. The popular vision is far removed fron the informed opinion of scholars and intellectuals who treat the subject. The more pertinent question is how should the state view marriage. Merely as an individual whimsy.... or as a rational institution that serves a legitimate governmental purpose? Marriage is NOT seen merely as "an institution bringing together two individuals based on mutual affection and equality" by more people who know about these things than those that do. “Once marriage came to be seen as an institution bringing together two individuals based on mutual affection and equality….”

This, of course, is the myth foisted by the marriage deconstructionists on an uninformed public, or a public whose sexual and social education came primarily from Hollywood movies and Harlequin Romance novels.

The popular vision is far removed fron the informed opinion of scholars and intellectuals who treat the subject. The more pertinent question is how should the state view marriage. Merely as an individual whimsy…. or as a rational institution that serves a legitimate governmental purpose?

Marriage is NOT seen merely as “an institution bringing together two individuals based on mutual affection and equality” by more people who know about these things than those that do.

]]> By: John Howard http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/comment-page-1/#comment-79226 John Howard Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:39:59 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/12/the-procreation-imperative/#comment-79226 It's a procreation *right*, not imperative. Marriage makes it legal to conceive children together. It gets official consent from both parties and the state and announces and welcomes the concept of this couple having children. Of course it doesn't require it! It <i>allows</i> it. It also obligates the parties to each other, even if they don't have children. But people should only be allowed to conceive with another person of the other sex. We shouldn't allow cloning (or marrying yourself) or same-sex conception (or marrying someone of the same sex). Same-sex conception would require genetic engineering and would be too risky, we should only allow natural conception of a man and a woman. Marriage must continue to guarantee the right to conceive children together, using the marriage's own gametes. It would be dangerous to allow any marriages of people who are not allowed to attempt to conceive together, since this could spill over into heterosexual marriages and forced eugenics. It’s a procreation *right*, not imperative. Marriage makes it legal to conceive children together. It gets official consent from both parties and the state and announces and welcomes the concept of this couple having children.

Of course it doesn’t require it! It allows it. It also obligates the parties to each other, even if they don’t have children.

But people should only be allowed to conceive with another person of the other sex. We shouldn’t allow cloning (or marrying yourself) or same-sex conception (or marrying someone of the same sex). Same-sex conception would require genetic engineering and would be too risky, we should only allow natural conception of a man and a woman.

Marriage must continue to guarantee the right to conceive children together, using the marriage’s own gametes. It would be dangerous to allow any marriages of people who are not allowed to attempt to conceive together, since this could spill over into heterosexual marriages and forced eugenics.

]]>