Is that cake frosting?
Although, to be honest, I'm sort of confused about why he's talking about genders at all, if his main beef is against gay marriage. Sexuality and gender are quite different things: a gay male is still a male, and a gay female is still a female.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Don't be too confused, since the issues are often conflated by the ignorant or hateful.
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
Radical Moderate
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
My sense was that it was playing into the idea that gender complementarity rules out gay marriage — i.e. that marriage brings the two genders together into a greater whole when it unites the bride and groom, and so two males or two females cannot be truly married. To which I say blargh. But that's why I'm worried that some form of gender stereotypes lies behind the anti-gay marriage argument.
edited 8th Oct '14 7:10:16 AM by BokhuraBurnes
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
Carciofus, I'm starting not to miss you. You have an ugly habit of posting all the arguments I've intended to make, and—unforgivably—putting them better, more cogently, and more charitably than I would have been able. Consider yourself on notice, sir.
Same-sex conception is going to a new thing soon, I think. Then gay couples will be able to reproduce. So most likely, people who are critics of gay marriage because it's non-reproductive will have a change of heart.
Absolutely no relation to NLK
That doesn't seem very likely.
Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.
Is that cake frosting?
Sorry 
And thanks!
The Catholic Church already considers any kind of IVF to be abortion, so unlikely.
(Interestingly, Left Behind already predicted exactly what you suggested. Their position on and treatment of the issue was done with all the open-mindedness, sensitivity and subtlety that you would expect.)
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
Indiana Solo
@cassidy- you kidding? It'd turn from the to the issue of whether or not it's an unnatural abomination.
Frankly I'd say such things should be illegal out of concern for the potential child of such abuse of science.
I'm baaaaaaack
Zzzzzzzzzz
What? NO. It does not approve of IVF, but not because it's abortion. It's considered "gravely immoral" or "morally reprehensible" because "a child is a gift from God, not a right", because it makes the child into a commodity, and and because
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.
edited 8th Oct '14 4:04:16 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
Why would that be? It seems pretty unlikely that anyone could possibly take an argument against something because it's unnatural seriously. Even if some rare person believed that, wouldn't it be hard to convince everyone else, who live modern society and completely depend on unnatural ways of living?
Indiana Solo
Well here's the thing.
Building a road from tar and stone? eh.
Rebuilding a wrong gendered body so it can carry a child artificially engineered from mismatched sex cells? that's entirely different territory.
I'm baaaaaaack
People were freaked by the idea of surgery too, but we got over that quickly once everyone saw the benefits.
Party Crasher
Not the same. At all.
Though, i'm having the feeling we're getting rather off-topic...
edited 8th Oct '14 5:02:44 PM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
Indiana Solo
Very true.
I'm baaaaaaack
Zzzzzzzzzz
Anti: Adoption is not comparable. Adoption does not create a new child. Technology is not universally accepted by the church just because it exists. And Baptism has nothing to do with whether the child is "owed" to the parents.
You're reaching.
edited 8th Oct '14 5:26:07 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
No, believe it or not people had strong moral beliefs against surgery. It doesn't matter whether surgery and same-sex conception are equivalent technologies or similar in impact, the fact is there are strong parallels in the reactions and argumentation against it.
Which will pass in the same way, as people get used to it, and the people who don't move on will become increasingly ignored.
I agree, that's reaching, but for the record, are you just quoting the Catholic Church, or agreeing with their assessment?
edited 8th Oct '14 5:57:19 PM by CassidyTheDevil
@Madrugada: Remind me to stop drawing doctrinal conclusions from sidebars in news articles at 2AM. 
I stand corrected.
But anyway, the Catholic Church is certainly not going to support lesbian marriage note just because women can now hypothetically conceive a child through the use of a technology that they already consider morally wrong.
If women were to develop a method of conception through a lesbian sex act (viz. Fates Worse Than Death), then the Church would have to move the goalposts again to defend their position that marriage must theoretically be for the production of children through sexual intercourse. But since the Church already has very specific ideas about who should be allowed to have sex with whom and why, and how reproduction should be accomplished, it's not much of a stretch to say that existing plans for Homosexual Reproduction won't change a thing.
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
...since the Church already has very specific ideas about who should be allowed to have sex with whom and why, and how reproduction should be accomplished, it's not much of a stretch to say that existing plans for Homosexual Reproduction won't change a thing.
Yeah, I imagine the Catholic Church's positions will end evolving over geological time, many thousands of times slower than the rest of the world, but very little in a human limetime. But still, you can see the Pope starting to backtrack on this a little bit already. They're not completely immune to changes in public opinion.
Anyway, I wasn't thinking that things like that will effect the opinion of members high-up religious hierarchy much, but I think it probably will cause the average person's beliefs to shift.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Cassidy:
edited 8th Oct '14 6:46:10 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
And it is comparable because that also infringes on:
"They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."
This is not given in adoption either.
Also, restricting choices of people is now a right, eh?
And why is this a good thing again? There's no explanation to why conceiving a child should only be done "through each other".
Indiana Solo
Anti they've done experiments with such things on mice. Resulting 'children' , if even survive, are generally sickly if not outright mailformed. Doing such things to a child is nor worth indulging someone's fantasy that they're exactly the same as hetero sexual couples. They have to deal with the fact there are physical differences and confront that. Otherwise they're just trying to imitate something they're not.
edited 8th Oct '14 7:28:30 PM by joesolo
I'm baaaaaaack
Party Crasher
Very true.
This is one of those cases were a large chunk of the scientific community happens to hold the same stance with the Church. And rightfully so.
Also, I'd like to point out that, unlike surgery, this... form of conception is neither benificial nor necessary to/for the improvement of human quality of life. Or the advancement of medicine, for that matter.
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
If masculinity and femininity are purely biologically and essential, no teaching would be able to change them. You'd have nothing to fear. If they can be changed, they're not biological or necessary. And than it becomes petty tyrannical to insist on them.