At what point will holding anti-gay positions start becoming a liability?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much

Viewing this as in end in itself is extremely questionable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much

Viewing this as in end in itself is extremely questionable.

Nah, we'll move on to other things like human cloning, genetic modification, and designer babies that will cause just as much uproar. Social progressivism requires an insatiable hunger for "social progress" that will not end at gay marriage. The religious right isn't going to run out of things to oppose any time soon.

Yeah. We're not giving up

I would hope you wouldn't, since I don't actually have that hunger for 'social progress' for its own sake and will probably join you when it comes to issues of re-normalizing eugenics and other such nastiness.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nah, we'll move on to other things like human cloning, genetic modification, and designer babies that will cause just as much uproar. Social progressivism requires an insatiable hunger for "social progress" that will not end at gay marriage. The religious right isn't going to run out of things to oppose any time soon.

Yeah. We're not giving up

I would hope you wouldn't, since I don't actually have that hunger for 'social progress' for its own sake and will probably join you when it comes to issues of re-normalizing eugenics and other such nastiness.

And you will fail just as the homophobes failed. Simply because even if America or Belgium or istan bans GE, their will  be countries which don't ban it... no real challenge to take a short trip there, do the deed, then return home with the "designer baby" growing inside her.

Not to mention that countries which successfully restrain will be at a competitive disadvantage relative to those that allow it. And that any such ban will be most successful in restraining GE amongst the poor, thus leaving it even more the privilege of the rich then it otherwise would be.

Large-scale normalization of this sort of thing, which is somewhere in territory beyond 'human rights violation' for reasons that most people either reject or find obvious, would entail the creation of some kind of alternate mode of being where such things are frowned upon as the only acceptable recourse. Like a kibbutz but multiconfessional, maybe.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And you will fail just as the homophobes failed. Simply because even if America or Belgium or istan bans GE, their will  be countries which don't ban it... no real challenge to take a short trip there, do the deed, then return home with the "designer baby" growing inside her.

Not to mention that countries which successfully restrain will be at a competitive disadvantage relative to those that allow it. And that any such ban will be most successful in restraining GE amongst the poor, thus leaving it even more the privilege of the rich then it otherwise would be.

Large-scale normalization of this sort of thing, which is somewhere in territory beyond 'human rights violation' for reasons that most people either reject or find obvious, would entail the creation of some kind of alternate mode of being where such things are frowned upon as the only acceptable recourse. Like a kibbutz but multiconfessional, maybe.

You must be ing kidding me?! Even pro-lifers don't consider sperm and ovum to be "alive"... that is the point at which genetic engineering would take place, before the fetus even exists. So how can it be considered a human rights violation(or, as you implied, worse then a human rights violation) when the subject material is not even human? Above and beyond that, how the hell is the pursuit of a more perfect human immoral?... if anything it's the epitome of morality, morality after all being that which alleviates the negative conditions suffered by humanity and promotes the presence of positive conditions.

Oh, you misunderstand me, obviously it's not the substance at the moment of the action taken upon it that's 'alive' as such. The problem is the fact that it's done with a view towards deciding what characteristics a person will have, from their mother's womb. The problem is with the intent rather than with the act. It's an assertion of absolute control over the fundaments of another person before they have anything remotely resembling, not even just a choice, but the ability to realize the matter. I understand that for somebody who's okay with constructing 'disability' as 'imperfection' that might seem appealing, but for somebody whose personality has been largely formed by the experience of living with disabilities mental and physical, this is the sort of thing that I interpret as an attack on the conditions of my existence. I've read Foucault. I know how this sort of exercise of power works. You're not going to convince me that a 'perfect' humanity is anything more than a myopic, hubristic, and fundamentally cruel dream originating from the people who have the luxury of being able to impose their fitness standards of normative. I also don't share your definition of 'morality' or even, it looks like, 'positive' and 'negative'. For instance, I view many of my disabilities as things that I would rather have than not. Sorry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Always amusing to see that some people have not left the 19th century of the mind.

Me or him or both? Because he's reminding me a little of Herbert Spencer, but I can honestly see how I might be reminding someone of John Ruskin or Matthew Arnold (which I don't see as entirely unflattering but don't see as entirely flattering either).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Then why hasn't the GLBT folks tried to make a serious effort to stop us from banning gay marriage via constituitional amendment in Indiana? Also haven't ya noticed when it's been up to a vote of the people of the sovereign states gay marriage loses to traditional marriage every time. Thus Prop 8 in California is constuitional. That judge that said its unconstuitional should be removed. The federal courts have NO JURISDICTION ON THIS MATTER. Marriage is a state/local/church issue. The federal government is prohibited via 9th and 10th Amendment of the Constuition to get involved. I don't see anywhere in Article 1 Section 8 that marriage was a matter that congress (or the federal courts for that matter) could get involved so they need to step aside and let us decide this issue on the  religious/local/state level.

tl;dr - I should be able to make unconstitutional theocratic law and any judge that strikes down my religious law should be impeached.

But the law is constuitional. The law of nature is on my side in this matter. It's not a matter of theocracy or religious law. I'm speaking of natural law. Why do you you desire the state legality of a religious rite for couples who can't propagate the human race because the couple is of the same gender? Why should we be forced to allow what nature holds not to be natural?

The 'law of nature' is of course one of the oldest fallacies in the book of ethical philosophy. You're being impaled directly on Hume's Fork.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean that you worry that you might occasionally sound as if you're accidentally sounding more than vaguely Marxist?

I worry that I might be sounding like (pace Ruskin) somebody who uses slightly twee Latin puns to title his pamphlets or (pace Arnold) somebody with admittedly somewhat derivative and inconsistent views expressed in his social cirticism. The main senses in which I would perceive those comparisons as less than entirely laudatory are in terms of form, not content. Substantively I'd actually rather like to be as much 'in the tradition of' Ruskin/Arnold/Morris as contextually possible. Except Ruskin's association with certain types of planned communities. Screw planned communities. Oh, and the squabble with Whistler. I rather like Whistler.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I will first ask you, Nathan, whether you would maintain these objections against biological alterations to a person made after their birth(by their consent, obviously). Obviously post-birth alteration have less potential then pre-birth ones, but you may be surprised at how radical their capacity to change people will turn out to be.

My objections certainly wouldn't be as absolute or serious, though depending on the alterations in question I might be somewhat troubled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's entirely possible to wrong future persons or entities, though it's obviously immensely difficult to wade through when doing these investigations of ethics. This part of the argument isn't as important to me as the human diversity part, anyway, it's just that it's the part that's easiest to make from the perspective of individual rights and self-determination, which I am given to understand most people care about a lot more than I do in these sorts of situations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, let me clarify. It's the absoluteness of the intent that I have a problem with it. It's its character as an exercise of total power. To directly answer your question, yes I have serious moral issues with conventional authoritarian parenting styles as well; less authoritarian styles that still attempt to guide the child (like, well, pretty much all parenting) at least allow for some sort of dialogue with the child ('dialogue' broadly defined, of course). The child has the option of navigating the guidance. Saying that the problem was with the intent without clarifying what I meant by the intent was poor argumentation. Sorry about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh, I consider the state of existing as somewhat incomparable to other, more specific states. You're perfectly free to disagree on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At that stage it is indeed somewhat questionable, though again I point out that it provides, at least theoretically, a somewhat greater set of options to the child. The parent does have rights over the child in many areas. I'm not denying that. I just don't think that biopower is really one of those areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My answer to this would be religious in character, so I doubt it would be convincing. This is another area where there are just intractable differences of worldview.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly. To be honest I might be projecting other aspects of the medicalization of people and their issues on to this somewhat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Define 'mediocrity'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As my experience of living with them coupled with my realization of the absoluteness of my family's love for me is the primary genesis of mine. Although thank you, now that you've brought this to light I understand better now where you're coming from. I do understand, believe me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm...really not sure that you've exhausted the potential options here. If you have I'd be willing to at least consider the deployment of limited and targeted ways to deal with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, we're not going to agree on any of these definitions. I'm willing to sit down and continue this conversation, including explaining how I would define these terms, if you like, but I'm actually pretty busy with both friends and schoolwork this evening and I have church and more schoolwork tomorrow, so if you're interested you might have to wait a little while. I'll warn you in advance that some of my definitions and examples will, again, be spiritual (though I hope not sectarian) in character and as such might once again indicate a difference of opinion that is irreducible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You've slightly simplified many of my beliefs and opinions but you haven't actually mischaracterized any of them, so you're right that we've probably reached an impasse.

Anyway, let's get back to discussing homophobic politicians. I tend to think that by 2016 not supporting marriage would be a fatal or near-fatal liability in a Democratic primary at least, and not supporting at least civil unions and employment-discrimination protections probably would be in a general election. Maybe not in some states, but nationwide.

Of course it's also possible that some sort of national trauma and/or weird new political movement would cause us to backslide on this as on other issues.