Question for BNCordeiro

Brock, have you ever suggested to anyone in the Culture of Life movement that maybe we should try an idea you read about on line, that has a good chance of ending same-sex marriage and preserving natural conception of children and natural procreation rights?

“How?” they’d ask you.

“Well,” you’d say, “we’d probably have to compromise by accepting legal protections for same-sex couples in the form of Civil Unions…”

They’d jump in to object, “No! Civil Unions are stepping stones to marriage and we shouldn’t be approving of same-sex couples at all!”

But you’d nod in agreement and then say “But these Civil Unions wouldn’t be stepping stones to marriage, because marriage would be protected as approving of the couple conceiving children together, and we would also prohibit same-sex couples from conceiving children together, so that would mean they couldn’t be turned into marriages. These Civil Unions would be defined so as to be give the other protections and rights of marriage, but would specifically not give the right to conceive children together that would be reserved for a man and a woman!”

Maybe they’d be a little confused and unsure at first, but with your personal credibility and long-time track record of promoting the culture of life, they’d think about it and be receptive to the idea. You’d explain again that we would be ending same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and every other state that has it permanently, and all the same-sex marriages in the country would all be changed into these Civil Unions, and remind them that we would be prohibiting genetic engineering of designer babies and same-sex conception using artificial eggs and sperm, which would require unethical experimentation on human embryos and violate God’s plan for mankind, and stopping schools from teaching children that there is no difference between being straight and gay or a boy or a girl, restoring sanity to the classroom.

You’d assure them that it’s a good idea, and ask them to call the Governor, their Rep in Congress, and their Senators, and ask them to support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.

Then maybe that’s what they’d do, and before you know it, it would be done!

What is the harm in trying that?

About John Howard

  • The things you come across on the internet when you check your computer before going back to bed.

    I’m sorry you wasted your time typing all that but I am not in agreement with civil unions & I will not compromise on that principle or issue.  The rest of your question is dead on that point based upon your hypothetical scenario.

    The idea of ends justifying the means is one with very disastrous results.

    I’d much rather stick to good old fashioned fighting against Frankenstein science or the creation of chimera.  Prohibiting genetic engineering and designer babies does not require civil unions.

    We’ve also been over this before but the “right” to conceive does not come from marriage but rather licit conception is within marriage.  A right, by its nature, is something innately possessed & not needed to be granted or given to you by anyone else.  Any two heterosexuals engaging in fornication prove that they have the biological right to potentially conceive.  The question then is one of legitimacy and thus conception and its status as licit or illicit, with no intended derogatory labeling to the conceived, is determined by the status of the parents (fornication, adultery, etc.).  

    You’re trying to read into the law that which is a philosophical or ecclesiastical concept.  Your not grounded firmly on rock but soft and mushy quicksand.

    I am on the record supporting, and maintain my support, for traditional marriage in Massachusetts and across the nation.  I disagree with the notion of “same sex” marriage.  I’ve been interviewed by the media for my thoughts on transgenderism (respect the inherent dignity of the individual but maintain a traditional position).  Likewise, I do not support unjustifiable scientific & medical experimentation on or with life (i.e. fetal stem cell research & cloning).  I’m not going to spend my time trying to defend your particular niche for one, as I previously noted the wholesale slaughter of innocent children that occurs daily by far takes pro-life precedent at this moment as opposed to your more theoretical science and further more, I believe that at the current time that advocacy of the issue has been damaged by the messenger and his well-intentioned but ultimately flawed tactics.  Before law is changed perhaps a multitude of hearts ands minds must do so first?

    As I head back to bed, I’ll pray & labor on behalf of the whole panoply of Culture of Life causes but I can only focus upon so much.  Some friends I know focus upon women in other nations.  Some focus upon the trafficking of women.  Those are both wonderful causes, but my focus is on the peculiar national institution that is the American holocaust of infanticide in the womb that has caused 50+ million lives lost over 2 generations.  You have a different focus under the banner of life.  I respect that and via con Dios, mi amigo.