Progress and the death of man

Just to clarify, I in no way gloat or take any satisfaction at what's happening to Britain. In fact, I grieve it. It is the mother country, culturally speaking, for all English-speaking peoples. And besides, aside from the creeping Islamization, what's happening in the UK is happening here too, though to a different degree.

Thanks Rod. I saw this story last night (linked from a popular internet headline site) and almost puked. This entire bill -- from the legalization of man-beast hybrids to the sidelining of fathers -- indeed represents all that you have described.

We must fight like hell and be DAMNED WELL CERTAIN this nonsense does not happen here. This fight must take place on every front.

The following is taken from The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings. You can find the report online at the Census Bureau's web site by googling the paper title.

"for full-time, year-round workers, the 40-year synthetic earnings estimates are about $1.0 million (in 1999 dollars) for high school dropouts, while completing high school would increase earnings by another quarter-million dollars (to $1.2 million). People who attended some college (but did not earn a degree) might expect work-life earnings of about $1.5 million, and slightly more for people with associates degrees ($1.6 million). Over a work-life, individuals who have a bachelor’s degree would earn on average $2.1 million — about one third more than workers who did not finish college, and nearly twice as much as workers with only a high school diploma. A master’s degree holder tops a bachelor’s degree holder at $2.5 million. Doctoral ($3.4 million) and professional degree holders ($4.4 million)do even better."

Irenaeus writes:

" ... given the serious damage and injustice governments can commit, is it really time to withdraw, time for a fast from politics? Or should we remain involved but perhaps less sanguine about our prospects and more cynical towards those politicians who claim to be concerned with our concerns?"

Irenaeus,

It's a great question you ask. I appreciate -- and often share --- your mood. However, what choice do we have but not to engage? Much good is obtained by our continuing to draw attention to these problems and making good arguments for our positions. Why do I say this?

For one thing, we're on the right side of these arguments. Unquestionably :-)

Secondly, we must trust in the inherent common sense of people. So we carefully listen to the "signs of the times," sharpen our arguments, and engage in "creative orthodoxy." What could be more fun :-) ? And we draw people towards our position. Not everyone will be persuaded, but enough to make a difference. Especially among the young.

Finally, all these developments will inevitably result in social collapse. We know that already. My question: will orthodox believers be in place and prepared to "pick up the pieces" after the collapse? Years ago, I read a biography of Konrad Adenauer, the first prime minister of a post-war Germany. Adenauer was a committed Christian who spent many of the war years incarcerated by the Nazis. He endured (as did many other Germanss, including an awkward teenager named Joseph Ratzinger, who aspired to be a priest). Inevitably, the Nazis collapsed. People like Adenauer and Ratzinger and others emerged from the ruins and "picked up the pieces."

As for dealing with the politicians, I recommend one of the more interesting essays written by the historian (and former magazine journalist) Garry Wills which he wrote in the 1960s entitled, I recall, "The Convenient State." It was included in the famous anthology of American conservative political thought edited by William Buckley in the 1970s. What I recall from the essay was Wills' notion that politicians were "political brokers" who were useful for their ability to create shifting coalitions that could garner 50%+ majorities and advance the agendas of the different parties to these coalitions.

Wills' attitude towards politicians was entirely dispassionate. He believed they served a useful function but were not to be the objects either of our devotion or of our hatred. They are not political messiahs either to be praised on Palm Sunday or crucified on Good Friday. In other words, we "work" with political leaders to achieve our ends but not expect too much of them.

Look around, and you see the rise of this type of thing everywhere. In my office, two of my single female colleagues have chosen to have kids without having a man (or even a woman partner). One sent out birth announcements that said "Kathy announces the birth of her children Jimmy and Suzie." There is absolutely no indication of who the sperm donor (I can't use the word father) might be. What I wonder is this: when Jimmy and Suzie reach the age when they ask who their daddy is, what will mommy tell them?

Technological possibility is driving morality in this country. Childbirth has become the ultimate shopping experience.

Rod had said, or implied, in a recent essay that Western secular culture is based on Enlightenment thinking and that this type of thought might not be compatible with Christianity. Well, if Enlightenment thought is leading us to fatherless children and gay marriage, then it's clear to me that such a culture is doomed. Perhaps we should applaud cultural self-destructiveness from the courts as it will hasten the demise of secular society and perhaps lead to a rejection of such in favor of a Christian culture.

As Rod said (he was referring to gay marriage, but I think the same applies to this situation as well), the court decisions are very logical and based on the thought processes of our social system, so when those very logical decisions lead to cultural sickness or death, well people will have to reject some of the axioms on which our secular society is based. It isn't the logic that's the problem, it's the axioms. I think Rod really hit the nail on the head with that essay about Enlightenment thought leading us to rational conclusions via the courts that we might not like.

Umm.. if that was offered to them out of the blue, it might be appropriate.

When they say they'd almost rather LIVE in such a society than ours, then they were the ones who are not loving, and considering leaving.

The other party is just saying they are welcome to do so.

PS - I think what the posters above are pointing out is, like with Rome, a more vital, even if less advanced civilization, will probably come along in our moment of weakness... The main idea being, we will not need to go anywhere to discover the joys of "dhimmitude" if we are so blasted stupid we can't even figure out what a family is, or for that matter that we are limited and finite creatures. It will come to us! Anyway, that is what is happening in Britain if you read the statements of the Archbishop of Cant. and Bishop Nazir-Ali (who happens to be a Muslim convert from Pakistan.)

The Bible is clearly against male homosexuality, which would matter to me if I believed in the Bible. Also, although I am not sure I accept them, there are at least secular cases to be made against it (eg. promiscuity, and various objections to anal sex). However, can anyone, anywhere, show me a moral case against lesbianism?

As for the issues that have been voted on in the UK parliament, they were as follows:

1. Hybrid embryos to be allowed to be used. These are animal eggs containing small amounts of human DNA. On balance, I guess I'm against this for slippery-slope reasons, although I'm not sure I'd feel like that if my family members needed urgent medical research.

2. Women can get AI without a male partner. As someone pointed out, this is already legal in the USA. I'm not sure that all that data about the bad effects of single parenthood are relevant to someone, probably fairly prosperous, who delibarately takes this option. What exactly is the objection to lesbians having children?

3. The decision was made, by a narrow margin, not to reduce the abortion cut-off from 24 weeks. Now, being pro-life, I think this was the wrong decision. However, the US limit is 26 weeks, so the criticism of the UK is not all that appropriate here. The UK has one of the latest limits in western Europe (I think only Holland is later).

Also, please, feel free to move to Saudi Arabia.

What exactly is the objection to lesbians having children?

It's not normal. It's not traditional. Throughout the ages, the norm has been for a male and female to marry, have babies, buy a pet, and live happily ever after. The father goes to work and brings home the bread. The mother cares for the children and fries the bread up in the pan. It's normal. Boys look at their father and learn how to be a real man. Girls look at their mother and learn how to be a real woman. They each look at the opposite sex role model and decide they want to marry a real man/woman just like mom and dad. It's the natural order of things.

Lesbians don't belong anywhere in this beautiful picture. They have no place. They need to accept that they are misfits and get back into the closet where they belong so that the boys and girls don't need to see this abnormal crap.

How can you even ask that question? Where have you been?

The issue is: Is it a right to have a child? Is it a right to kill one when inconvenient. A child is neither a right, or an inconvenience. A child is a person, made in the image of God, and deserving of love and respect. It really is pretty simple.

This item is, of course, welcome news to that species of feminist which believes that all the world's problems result from an overabundance of testosterone.

Bob: "Yeah! Love it or leave it."

IIRC the phrase from my generation was "Fix it or F--- it!"

As cultural conservatives become less and less relevant to actual decision making, this sort of thing is to be expected.

Please: I just glanced at the website you suggested. It is about children brought up my male homosexuals, and "exposed to nude beaches, "gay cruising" sites and sexually transmitted diseases". It doesn't really seem all that relevant to lesbian parenting, which is the point of discussion here.

Actually, it isn't 'enshrined into law'. They removed an existing law, making their system now like ours, which has no such law.

If they made a law specifically forbidding any law or practice that would lead to preventing those who didn't meet that law's requirments from getting fertility treatments, then we'd have something that was enshrined into law.

And they aren't 'experimenting' with children. They are having and raising them. Same as everyone else. If they were to deliberately engage in certain setups with the intent to observe the children to see how they respond in comparison with other setups, THAT would be an 'experiment'.

Well, might want to address that to the fellow citizens, who were the ones that were considering it.

"If they were to deliberately engage in certain setups with the intent to observe the children to see how they respond in comparison with other setups, THAT would be an 'experiment'. "

Isn't that what supporters are proposing when they say we should be able to prove that it is harmful before it could be banned? How do you propose we do that??? Or is that not really an argument, just a debate point?

"Whose natural law should we follow? "

Natural law is natural law is natural law. Nothing to do with religion. It has to do with what man can know by nature according to reason. The problem is, we are abandoning reason... Saying things like "I don't know what a family is" when it is immediately apparent. "When is a person a person - as opposed to a bunch of inconvenient stuff that can be discarded." And on and on...

Now, YOU may need to be conducting some experiments to come up with the proof. But, then again, you're the one (in that case) making the claim.

Natural law enforces itself. If something is 'against natural law', it isn't possible to do, outside of SUPERnatural intervention.

Therefore, if it is possible, its not against 'natural law'.

One doesn't 'break' the law of gravity, after all.

Or, mdavid, what if they say something like "Well, as you know both your mommy's are homosexual, we're lesbians. We're not attracted to men sexually, although we like them just fine in any other way. So we did what many heterosexual couples did, we used a sperm bank, where men donated to help couples who were otherwise unable to conceive a child, for various reasons.

So we don't exactly know who your father was, biologically. (Or maybe they do, and could tell the children.) Whoever he was, we're grateful for his contribution in making you happen. But we've loved you, and done our best to raise you and give you all that we could. If you feel that you've missed out by not having a father living with you, we're sorry. We still think our family was very worthwhile, as are many heterosexual families that lack fathers, for various reasons.

But if you'd like to seek that person out if you can, and get to know them, we're very supportive of that. How can we help? We love you.

What if they did that, mdavid, which is frankly what I suspect about 85% of people would do in that circumstance, instead of the mean-spirited rants that you put forward.

More important that having a father:

a. Proper nutrition as an infant and child
b. Sufficient sleep as an infant, child and teen
c. Adequate human capital in the home (viz. http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/05/18/the-politics-of-human-capital/ )
d. Physical safety

(Actually, (c) comprises many things, probably including (a), (b) and (d).)

None of those factors is in any way worse in households where the child or children are the result of fertility treatments provided to (i) single straight women or (ii) lesbians compared to traditional heterosexual two-parent households. If anything, they're better.

Statistically, impoverished fatherless households -- where the fatherlessness, the youth of the single mothers, the larger number of children/woman, etc. are due to a dysfunctional culture, are entirely a different story; count me among those who thinks their existence is a dire problem.

As for single women and lesbians who use fertility clinics, though, for me to believe someone really cares about human beings, he would have to care most about maximally improving those four factors in heterosexual two-parent households before he permitted himself to spend time searching for other factors to despair over.

Not to burst your bubble JPL, but "the mean-spirited rants" Mdavid put forward are simply the arguments liberals use to justify their decisions on these matters, especially over against conservatives. But I'm glad you recognize these arguments are "mean spirited." As you illustrate, however, Mdavid might also add:

6) Any criticism conservatives offer is mean spirited! Those hateful conservatives! All of our criticism, however, just points out how they are ignorant and have embraced some obsolete "myth." It's not mean at all.

Anyway, carry on...

rr

I have to disagree with rr. I think that homosexual couples or single mothers would approach the subject more like JPL. The focus would be on the love within their family and between current parents/parent and child then on a hatred of conservatives. Really, I don't see conservatives entering that particular conversation.

If the person did feel that they were missing out by not having a father figure, I think that homosexual couples or single mothers should let the kids share those feelings. It's, certainly, something that all homosexual couples or single mothers should think about.

My two nephews lost their mother(death) when they were very young. Sometimes it concerns me that our family never really gave them the opportunity to talk about what that was like for them or what not having a mother was like for them. I guess we couldn't change it, so we hoped that Grandma primarily filling that role was enough.

I just had to say something about an earlier comment regarding role models. It is not the role model which a child really needs, although a role model can be helpful. Ideally a child needs the experience of living in a loving, permanent, dependent relationship with both a man and a woman, preferably their mother and father. It is this experience of dependence and trust on both the parent who you share a gender with AND (probably even more important) with the parent who is "the other" due to gender which allows a child to be able to grow up capable of bridging the divide between genders in a healthy way. Of course heterosexual couples can betray their child's need`for trusting dependence. However, same sex parenting removes even the possibility of this essential formative experience.

the sheer dead weight of your sanctimonious inertia.

Quelle coincidence! That's the title of my long out of print solo album of lamentational madrigals for lute and Casio keyboard!

However, same sex parenting removes even the possibility of this essential formative experience.
Posted by: me | May 21, 2008 2:08 PM

Are you suggesting that if a child does not undergo this formative experience then it is better for it never to be born?

Ideally a child needs the experience of living in a loving, permanent, dependent relationship with both a man and a woman, preferably their mother and father. It is this experience of dependence and trust on both the parent who you share a gender with AND (probably even more important) with the parent who is "the other" due to gender which allows a child to be able to grow up capable of bridging the divide between genders in a healthy way.

I agree that's best. It's optimal. It can't be beat. I know that my children would not do as well without me or my husband. They need us both and knowing that our relationship is stable makes them more secure. My girls learn about men from their father, and my son learns about women from me(scary thought). They learn about relationships from watching my husband and I interact. Sometimes they learn good lessons and sometimes they learn lessons that aren't so great. Really, I can't disagree with that.

But......once again, I have to agree with JPL. We permit people to make decisions all of the time that aren't the very best for everyone involved. We permit couples with children to divorce for just about any reason. Dad wants a new girlfriend instead of a new car? Kiss that stability goodbye. It seems to me that by telling homosexuals that they can't have kids because it's not optimal seems to be selectively picking on certain people.

More important than having a father:

a. Proper nutrition as an infant and child
b. Sufficient sleep as an infant, child and teen
c. Adequate human capital in the home (viz. the post currently viewable at will wilkinson dot com, entitled "The Politics of Human Capital")
d. Physical safety

(Actually, (c) comprises many things, probably including (a), (b) and (d).)

None of those factors is in any way worse in households where the child or children are the result of fertility treatments provided to (i) single straight women or (ii) lesbians compared to traditional heterosexual two-parent households. If anything, they're better.

Statistically, impoverished fatherless households -- where the fatherlessness, the youth of the single mothers, the larger number of children/woman, etc. are due to a dysfunctional culture, are entirely a different story; count me among those who thinks their existence is a dire problem.

As for single women and lesbians who use fertility clinics, though, for me to believe someone really cares about human beings, he would have to care most about maximally improving those four factors in heterosexual two-parent households before he permitted himself to spend time searching for other factors to despair over.

Karen - "Therefore, if it is possible, its not against 'natural law'."

You don't understand what natural law is.

Whatsy - What you have failed to understand is that while any parent can abuse a child, the relationships you propose are by nature abusive.

JPL

I don't see much difference in fertility treatments either way. Both are based on the idea the a child is a right and a product. However, at least the child will have the good of a proper family, so, objectively speaking, while both are wrong, one is better.

And as far as single parent households, it does make a difference when you have planned to exclude a father. The situation is objectively different. I don't know that it would change the outcome for the child, but I would guess that it does. Bad things happen. That doesn't mean we should go out and do bad things. People die. That doesn't justify murder... See the difference?

Again, Please!, they were doing it because they were already doing it, before anyone said it was harmful.

It is identical to my eating that fish sandwich. Is continuing to eat it an experiment because someone said, "Hey, that's bad for you!" without providing any basis for the statement?

Geez, if that is the case, with the plethora of actual reports, research, magazine articles, well meaning advice and old wives tales centering around child rearing, EVERY child is an experiment.

And for JPL, I'm talking about scientific laws about the physical world.

Now, if you're talking about that ethical/religious theory proposed initially by Aquinas, well, most of our legal system isn't based upon the theory, and it is hardly a legally binding argument.

JPL - "No one old enough to understand biology things that they have no father."

Just wait. This too will change. (c.f., cloning.)

Karen - "because they were already doing it, before anyone said it was harmful."

I doubt it. And I doubt it was done with out knowledge that it was novel. But I think it is possible for someone to unwittingly experiment. Don't you? Seems like the prior knowledge of the actor is a bit limiting to this discussion. B/c this is not s'thing that only impacts the individual, it has societal implications. Those arguing for these arrangemetns are asking the society to undertake an experiment.

As for all things in child rearing being experimental, the things you note are done with the good of the child in mind. This, clearly, is not. That is the big difference.

"most of our legal system isn't based upon the theory, and it is hardly a legally binding argument."

We est. earlier that this is all the outworking of long accepted, "enlightened" princ.... These are, of course, now enshrined in law... That's not the question. We are not asking WHETHER it is legal. We are asking SHOULD it be. Different question altogether.

[QUOTE]Karen - "because they were already doing it, before anyone said it was harmful."

I doubt it.[/QUOTE]

Umm.. you can doubt all you want. Women have been raising children without men as long as there have been women, children, and men. And men have been doing so as well. Even before voluntary versions, war, famine, death, and abandonment have insured it.

Before any studies were done, before anyone knew HOW to do scientific studies, children have been raised dozens of different ways.

[QUOTE]And I doubt it was done with out knowledge that it was novel.[/QUOTE]

That's the point. It isn't all that novel. The technology is new, but that's about it.

[QUOTE]But I think it is possible for someone to unwittingly experiment. Don't you?[/QUOTE]

Nope. That one goes against the very definition of an experiment. An experiment isn't 'doing something new'. Most experiments are about things that have been happening for ages. When they did the experiment to determine if maggots came from rotting meat, meat had been rotting for forever. Maggots had been observed on rotted meat for, well, forever. There was not one novel thing about the situation.

What made it an experiment was the deliberate attempt to establish controls and observe the results, often with some sort of hypothesis in mind.

An experiment is nothing, if not deliberate.

[QUOTE]Seems like the prior knowledge of the actor is a bit limiting to this discussion. B/c this is not s'thing that only impacts the individual, it has societal implications. Those arguing for these arrangemetns are asking the society to undertake an experiment.[/QUOTE]

Again, this is not an 'experiment'. This is people, living their lives. And people do that dozens of different ways every single day. And are you proposing that parents have to ask society's permission on how to raise their children? (Not a very conservative notion, there...)

Again, this mostly arises from a very odd misunderstanding of what an experiment is.

Let's try the definition, just to get a handle on it.

"1. a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition."

It is done with purpose. It is a deliberate process. Something being unknown doesn't make it an experiment. Something being new doesn't make it an experiment.

[QUOTE]As for all things in child rearing being experimental, the things you note are done with the good of the child in mind. This, clearly, is not. That is the big difference.[/QUOTE]

That is your opinion. I won't say yours alone, since I know it is of others on this board and in society. But since you added 'in mind', I can say it is erroneous. Whether or not you think the 'good of the child' will result, you can NOT know what the prospective parents have 'in mind'.

watsy, I agree that going after gay people while giving only lip service to stopping heterosexual behavior such as cheating on a spouse, easy divorce, single parenthood, etc. is wrong. My concern is that once we get to the point of accepting gay marriage as a right it will be that much harder, if not impossible for us recover any sort of societal expectation and norm of responsible heterosexual behavior. It's not that preventing gay marriage is holding back the flood; it's just that gay marriage would be the thing which demonstrates once and for all that the dam is irrevocably broken and beyond repair.

Karen,

You said:

"Actually, it isn't 'enshrined into law'. They removed an existing law, making their system now like ours, which has no such law.

If they made a law specifically forbidding any law or practice that would lead to preventing those who didn't meet that law's requirments from getting fertility treatments, then we'd have something that was enshrined into law. "

The bill states:

"Treatment provided to woman who agrees that second woman to be parent

If no man is treated, by virtue of section 35 as the father of the child and no woman is treated by virtue of section 42 as a parent of the child, but—
(a) the embryo or the sperm and eggs were placed in W or she was
artificially inseminated, in the course of treatment services provided in the United Kingdom by a person to whom a licence applies,
(b) at the time when the embryo or the sperm and eggs were placed in W,
or W was artificially inseminated, the agreed female parenthood
conditions (as set out in section 44) were met in relation to another
woman, in relation to treatment provided to W under that licence, and
(c) the other woman remained alive at that time,then, subject to section 45(2) to (4), the other woman is to be treated as a parent
of the child."

Sounds pretty enshrined to me...

"can anyone, anywhere, show me a moral case against lesbianism"

Read up on the Catholic Church's teaching on natural law. If you know what sex is for, you use it for that purpose. It has an end proper to it, and lesbianism does not aim at, and indeed frustrates this purpose.

The Bible has nothing to say about lesbianism, which is an embarrassment for the Biblicist crowd.

Happily, they've syncretized Ancient World Nature deity paganism constructs of Divine Order Of Nature and Natural Laws into the belief system. From which they can derive an argument.

Even the NT interpretations are problematic about the extent of disapproval of male homosexuality. The the key Greek term in the Pauline "Clobber Passages", 'arsenokoitai', is a word much more ambiguous in meaning than the orthodox let on. It's not a word found anywhere in the copious erotic Greek literature of the period. There are other, much more conventional, Greek words of the time that clearly mean "homosexual", but Paul doesn't use them. 'Arsenokoitai' seems more plausibly along the lines of 'male prostitutes' and/or 'male seducers of men' than the blanket term "homosexual" (which first used in the late 1800s, did not exist as a word when the KJV was written, Grigory).

The problem with the Ancient World pagan Natural Law notion was that the deities required human help to prevent, i.e. kill, that which violated it, aka the 'unnatural'. In fact, the Gods severely punished human beings who did not enforce their Laws. So animals and people with grotesque birth defects were killed. Presumable infants of the wrong kinds of parentage were also let die. Homosexuality and mental illnesses led to killing of those who manifested them. The category of things we now call 'grotesque' or 'unnatural' they "knew" to be intolerable and necessary to destroy.

If I insert semen into your womb - I'd like to see you try that!

As for the equiv. between being poor or otherwise in a bad situation - that should be taken into account. Prudent people would not choose to do this. However, it is not a moral evil I think, simply imprudent.

Is a trust fund more valuable than a father? I don't see the equivalency here. But perhaps this is more of the same. A father is a good that has value, but can be exchanged for another good of equal or lesser value???

I'm not saying parents don't have rights vis a vis their children. But children are NOT rights! Nor are they products (no matter how they come about.) Children are people (no matter how small) and if we would just treat them that way, things would work out just fine.

I can't wait until muslims turn the UK into the Islamic Republic of Great Britain. Then maybe we will see some semblance of moral order from that godforsaken socialist dystopia.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

experiment

SYLLABICATION: ex·per·i·ment
PRONUNCIATION: k-spr-mnt
NOUN: 1a. A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried. b. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. 2. An innovative act or procedure: “Democracy is only an experiment in government” (William Ralph Inge). 3. The result of experimentation: “We are not [nature's] only experiment” (R. Buckminster Fuller).
INTRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: ex·per·i·ment·ed, ex·per·i·ment·ing, ex·per·i·ments
(-mnt)1. To conduct an experiment. 2. To try something new, especially in order to gain experience: experiment with new methods of teaching.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin expermentum, from experr, to try. See per-3 in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: ex·peri·menter —NOUN

Not terribly different from getting knocked up from a one night stand really, or all the kids women get pregnant with trying to anchor a male in a relationship.

Results are the same, methods vary.

Heck, the test tube kids may fair better, takes a lot of cash for invitro.

If this posts twice, sorry! I was just pointing out that lesbianism gets mentioned in Romans 1:26.

Paris Hilton wanted her chihuahua, too. Nice to think that now that's gone because it was too smelly she can trade up to a baby without any trouble on her part. Bet she gets Nicole Richey to have it for her too. Or maybe a contest. Some adoring male fan could be the donor and some 16 year-old wanna be could be the womb donor. Maybe Donald Trump could make a game show out of it. Gives you the warm fuzzies, don't it?

"I'm sorry that you clearly seem to prefer to controlled, iron-fist of tyranny to the problematic but invigorating struggle for democracy."

I'm sorry that you seem to prefer the soft tyranny of an individualism-fetishizing amoral Brave New World than to have the economic and governmental spheres be subservient, in even the slightest amount, to culture and religious ethics.

"I suppose there's nowhere in the middle you might be willing to meet, eh Grig?"

You were the one that first implied an either/or dichotomy, not me. All I desire is that nations be held to some kind of ethical, moral standard. Democracies are only as moral as the people who inhabit them, which is partly why I am dissatisfied by representational government.

Jillian, The Bible has nothing to say about lesbianism, which is an embarrassment for the Biblicist crowd.

The "Bibicist crowd"? Sheese. Any fool who has even skimmed the bible knows you are wrong. One quick example that is hard even for liberals to twist is Romans 1:26-27; the following translation is a pretty good word-for-word reading of the Greek (NASB):

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

If you know any Greek, here are the major scripts (Textus Receptus, Byzantine, Alexandrian, and even the Hort and Westcott): greeknewtestament.com/B45C001.htm. There is no way to translate it otherwise.

Even the NT interpretations are problematic about the extent of disapproval of male homosexuality. The the key Greek term in the Pauline "Clobber Passages", 'arsenokoitai', is a word much more ambiguous in meaning

Again, this is simply not true. But even if it were, there are no "ambiquous" Greek terms in Romans 1:26. Any honest person with an IQ over room temperature can see that this passage is crystal clear on the sin of homosexuality, both male and female.

Heck, so you don't believe Christian teaching. Fine. It's a free country. Just leave the poor bible alone!

Well, ok, that's honest at least, and I can respect it, although I think you really need to know more about Iran. Try "Reading Lolita in Tehran", for example, or any number of other books written by Iranian expats. As for not executing the guilty, I can't imaging what you mean. Iran absolutely has the death penalty, and uses it regularly, including the execution of homosexuals. Iran allows polygamy. Iran is busily working on a nuclear weapon. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the planet. None of those things you described really fit Iran.

Or, maybe you just meant you'd want THIS county to be that way, and you see the Iranian style theocracy the way to do it, but without their exact laws. That would make more sense, and if so, I get it.

I guess we have plenty of common ground then, sir. I too believe we should take care of the poor. I too am opposed to the death penalty, and am very iffy about abortion, particularly late-trimester cases or when used as birth control. I too think job security should be more important than profit for multi-nationals. And I too think science needs to be controlled, although I'd imagine we have some differences in the exact limits of that control.

Still, we're damn close. I just don't think an imposed theocracy is the best way to make that happen. But given that, in point of fact, I don't know how to make that happen, I can appreciate your idea, and the fact that you're honest about it.

Truthfully, this is a good example of what I mean. Although we clearly have differences, we're not that far apart on many, many fundamental issues. We'd agree on many things, and if we can just find ways to negotiate the other pieces in good faith, we could move our nation ahead.

Thanks!

JPL

"So, the State can control your ability to procreate? "

The state already regulates to some extent the use of one's natural reprod. capabilities. There is case law in this country. Forced sterilizations and court orders, etc.

That requires a pretty high bar, of course. What we are talking about is a persons ability to contract with a lab to create a baby quite outside of the natural ability to do so. Seems like a lower threshold could be argued in this instance. As for privacy, this is hardly a private affair in any normal sense.

Karen - Not sure why we need to cont. a discussion about what the meaning of "is" is. Of course there are many ways to use the word. Not sure why a hyper tech. one is the only one you approve of. I already admitted to a rather loose usage above. What does this add to the disc? All I am saying is this is embarking on an untested path, and may have (and from my POV will have) harmful consequences. As we disc. above, many things qualify under this definition. NO matter. I am pointing out that this one is not likely undertaken with the same end in view.

I just read Romans 1:26 in Greek on my Logos Software. In saying that the Females are changing the natural to the para psusin, it seems to me that the text could be saying that the Females had unnatural sex with Men. In any case, the text is euphemistic at best. I can see how one can say that the text deals with Lesbianism and Homosexuality, but I could also construct another reading from the Greek. I could be wrong, but I don't see the text as clearly as others. However, if that is how your tradition understands the text, I can understand that and I respect that. I used the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Ed., with McReynolds English Interlinear, and then used my software to look up each word in my various dictionaries.

I'm saying that I would guess someone going to that level of effort (effort not needed by those of us who can simply get pregnant unwanted, and/or by accident, no matter how we feel after the fact) to have a child shouldn't automatically have aspersions cast on their motives and goals in doing so.

Whether or not you think this is a good idea, I do NOT think anyone is INTENDING harm. As far as it being some kind of 'experiment' because it is different or new, we have decades of open experiences with gays raising kids. And far more than that for single parents.

Hardly all that novel at this point. Remember, this is ENGLAND who changed the law allowing it.

Its been legal in our country for a long time.

This is already the case in the U.S. healthcare system in many subtle ways. For instance, I was shocked in 2001 when my first daughter was born there were many papers to sign before we could all leave the hospital, not a single one of them even had a line for a "father's signature", only the mother.

This conversation can only be compared to old folks sitting around talking about kids today. It's silly.

The reason it's silly is because what we're seeing is evolution at work and enterpreting the process as failure insted of accepting it as transition with a positive result.

Back in the day, middle last century even, the rules were still pretty much based upon man rules. Man rules evolve around force. The biggest and most dominant personalities ruled everything from the work place to the home. It was unfair because the advantages were genetic and not earned.

What we're dealing with now is the imposition of women rules into the mix. Women rules are different because they're based upon compromise and concurrence. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, but again, it isn't fair because the advantages can be genetic over earned.

The problem is both sets of rules have their place and are effective in that place but neither is efficient at replacing the combination of the two.

I work construction. One of the cold hard facts about construction work is women can't do it. Another cold hard fact about construction is men raised by women can't do it either.

The reason for this is simple. Man rules have a clause about the tough get going when the going gets tough. Man rules demand that you don't buckle down or ask for help until all other options are proven futile.

Women rules don't have this clause. What they have is a clause about the person best equiped for the job doing the job. So when the going gets tough you find someone tough and assign them the job. The rule is you only result to bucking down and doing it yourself when all other options have proven futile.

We as a species will survive this conflict of the rules of conduct. What we will end up with will have the best of both systems. It's just that we haven't arrived there yet.

If this posts twice, sorry! I was just pointing out that lesbianism gets mentioned in Romans 1:26.

If you know any Greek, here are the major scripts (Textus Receptus, Byzantine, Alexandrian, and even the Hort and Westcott): greeknewtestament.com/B45C001.htm. There is no way to translate it otherwise.

Well, except for the small detail that it talks about orgiastic (mis)behavior by heterosexuals rather than lesbianism or homosexuality per se.

"Even the NT interpretations are problematic about the extent of disapproval of male homosexuality. The the key Greek term in the Pauline "Clobber Passages", 'arsenokoitai', is a word much more ambiguous in meaning"

Again, this is simply not true. But even if it were, there are no "ambiguous" Greek terms in Romans 1:26. Any honest person with an IQ over room temperature can see that this passage is crystal clear on the sin of homosexuality, both male and female.

It's a very well trodden topic. Just because you buy into an ideological claim doesn't mean I have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

Worse in quality, but more quantity-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm#menu
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

Heck, so you don't believe Christian teaching. Fine. It's a free country. Just leave the poor Bible alone!

My suspicion keeps on increasing that I hold the Bible in higher regard than you do. I see it as a spiritual guidebook, not the primary text of a sacred materialism.

Well, except for the small detail that it talks about orgiastic (mis)behavior by heterosexuals rather than lesbianism or homosexuality per se.

-- But just because we think it is nec. to make such a distinction, doesn't mean the author did. I think it is more likely that sinful behavior is sinful, no matter if you call yourself "gay" or whatever.

-- Why do we argue for context only when it suits our purpose? ("this was for a particular audience, in a particular time and place") And for literalism ("it doesn't say 'queers' so it must not apply) when it suits our purpose?

Please supply some evidence that the early Church supported orgiastic misbehavior by homosexuals. Otherwise, I think it is a pretty thin argument.

It can mean many things, and can only be argued in context.

-- But the auth. translations do not translate it this way. The Scripture is the Church's book. She is responsible for its faithful presentation, and it is to be interpreted from within the Church, and in union with Her. If you don't believe the Church, what difference does it make what the Scripture says?