Gay men biologically able to reproduce?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2010 5:11 PM GMT
    I just read an article about how through cloning and stem cells scientists have been able to create "male eggs" out of stems cells from skin and are working on creating "artificial uteruses." when combined with the other partners sperm and put into the uterus they can biologically creat their own offspring... I thought this was a great step for gay couples who would like to have children, and would maybe even reduce discrimination against gays since most discrimination occurs because they say it's wrong because we can't reproduce.

    What are your opinions on this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2010 5:16 PM GMT
    um, I'm already biologically able to reproduce....even if I jerk off in a cup and use a turkey baster on her or let her girlfriend do it!!


    Just not willing to do it 'missionary style'..icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2010 5:24 PM GMT
    StudlyScrewRite saidum, I'm already biologically able to reproduce....even if I jerk off in a cup and use a turkey baster on her or let her girlfriend do it!!


    Just not willing to do it 'missionary style'..icon_rolleyes.gif


    Haha that is funny icon_lol.gif But I meant two gays biliogically being able to reduce offspring with strictly their own genes and not needing a a surrogate mother.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2010 5:40 PM GMT
    Finally! We can send all the women back to Venus....

    Hmmm. If men got pregnant, an artificial uterus would have already been invented.


    I think it would be cool if two guys can have their own genetic off-spring.
    But I'm not holding my breath due to biological and political/ethical barriers.


    HotCollegeDude> maybe even reduce discrimination against gays since most discrimination occurs because they say it's wrong because we can't reproduce

    I doubt that's a real "reason" (no one is "against" str8 couples that can't/don't reproduce) - it's just a rationalization for heterosexist bigots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2010 6:40 PM GMT
    Woohoo! When can we ship off the women??

    A lesbian told me years back that they did not need men any more as they had developed something where they can take part of one chick's eggs and insert it in the other's eggs to create offsping...
  • corknut

    Posts: 10

    Nov 26, 2010 7:41 PM GMT
    Sounds interesting. I was taught that 2 eggs or 2 sperm can't create viable offspring because of genetic imprinting where some genes inherited from the father are inactivated and others from the mother are inactivated. Together genes from a man and woman create a fully functional gene set but, if genes are from both male parents or both female parents then there will be some inactive genes. If they've managed to overcome this then its really something to get excited over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2010 3:21 AM GMT
    HotCollegeDude saidand would maybe even reduce discrimination against gays since most discrimination occurs because they say it's wrong because we can't reproduce.


    No it wouldn't. They're argument is based on "natural ability to reproduce" and they'll ignore ALL logic you use in your answer, such as "but we have the technology to make gays have babies," just like we say, "but we have glasses/contact/laser surgery to make blind people have sight."

    None of that will work on people who are anti-gay. They reason based on fallacy and you can't argue logic with someone who does not think with logic. You can only use fear and intimidation. I say we use technology to make insanely good looking gay babies and break every breeders heart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2010 3:22 AM GMT
    corknut saidSounds interesting. I was taught that 2 eggs or 2 sperm can't create viable offspring because of genetic imprinting where some genes inherited from the father are inactivated and others from the mother are inactivated. Together genes from a man and woman create a fully functional gene set but, if genes are from both male parents or both female parents then there will be some inactive genes. If they've managed to overcome this then its really something to get excited over.


    They probably figured out a way to make two eggs or two sperm work. The experiments are recent...and successful.
  • turtleneckjoc...

    Posts: 4685

    Nov 27, 2010 3:30 AM GMT
    Hey Jake....let's you and I get together and make babies.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2010 3:43 AM GMT
    Anti-gay people will still argue that this isn't natural (and it really isn't) because it requires manipulation of biological components that is only possible with scientific technology (and we all know that science is a lie icon_razz.gif). If this really works well then that's great! But it won't do anything to improve attitudes toward homosexuals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 2:50 PM GMT
    OH MY GOD !! If you think the far right christian talaban were being fanatical when they went against embryonic stem cell research, just wait till they get ahold of this !!!! Can't you just hear Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Congresswoman Bachman, and Odonnell on this one !!!! They'll have all kinds of conspiracy theories made up about the "Queers" gonna take over the country by making more "Queers" LOL !!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 2:56 PM GMT
    Prosthetic babies give me the creeps. How about curing disease, docs, and not tampering with the natural limitations of biology?

    We don't like Monsanto tampering with our corn, right?
  • dannyboy1101

    Posts: 977

    Nov 28, 2010 3:33 PM GMT
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    My theory is that the seemingly larger and larger gay population is Darwinism at its finest. The planet is feeling overcrowded. There's a maximum number that a civilization can uphold. Either something radical changes (ie the ability to farm back in the day) or somehow the population is kept down so there's enough food etc. We are the population control. If gays create children en masse that means a new control has to come up (new black plague anyone?).

    Plus who wants to see a queen on pregnant hormones? Hell no thanks!!! Adopt. You can be like angelina jolie! Leave the reproduction to the poor suffering str8 married man. I'll toast him next time I take an amazing trip somewhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2010 3:37 PM GMT
    male eggs and artificial uterus are all still theoretical concepts and haven't been proven, also they do not necessarily require stem cells. It would however be interesting though icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 7:47 PM GMT
    One word: EW!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 8:37 PM GMT
    adopt
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 8:43 PM GMT
    Gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples in so many ways, but not in this one. It takes a male and a female to have a baby.

    I for one don't see why the one way in which gay couples and straight ones are fundamentally different should be "corrected." Nature has restricted the ability to carry a child to term to females, and it's not something I think we men should fight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:00 PM GMT
    amazeballs! that is all!...icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:02 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said Their argument is based on "natural ability to reproduce" and they'll ignore ALL logic you use in your answer, such as "but we have the technology to make gays have babies," just like we say, "but we have glasses/contact/laser surgery to make blind people have sight."

    None of that will work on people who are anti-gay. They reason based on fallacy and you can't argue logic with someone who does not think with logic. You can only use fear and intimidation. I say we use technology to make insanely good looking gay babies and break every breeders heart.


    I agree. What about an infertile straight couple who want a child? Clearly one or both may not have the "natural ability to reproduce", but few would deny them the scientific means of overcoming this (though the RC Church and the other Christian fundamentalist nutters probably would).
  • Nga101

    Posts: 3

    Jan 03, 2011 9:11 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbiNature has restricted the ability to carry a child to term to females, and it's not something I think we men should fight.


    Nature didn't give us clothes or cars. So then is it wrong to use them when we are cold or have a long way to travel? Culture can override biology. This technology would be another tool just like the other countless tools that we use on a daily basis. I think adoption is still the best way to go in a world of shrinking resources and increasing human population.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:16 PM GMT
    this sounds creepy... honestly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:20 PM GMT
    Suecer4 saidthis sounds creepy... honestly.


    Doubtless the idea of replacing a living person's heart would have sounded creepy 100 years ago. My initial reaction was to agree with you. When one looks at it logically, however, there is not really a valid argument against it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:21 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    HotCollegeDude saidand would maybe even reduce discrimination against gays since most discrimination occurs because they say it's wrong because we can't reproduce.


    No it wouldn't. They're argument is based on "natural ability to reproduce" and they'll ignore ALL logic you use in your answer, such as "but we have the technology to make gays have babies," just like we say, "but we have glasses/contact/laser surgery to make blind people have sight."

    None of that will work on people who are anti-gay. They reason based on fallacy and you can't argue logic with someone who does not think with logic. You can only use fear and intimidation. I say we use technology to make insanely good looking gay babies and break every breeders heart.


    Why the breeders? It's usually the girls that complain that all the hot/good guys are gay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:29 PM GMT
    Gosh you would think they'd work on gay marriage first haha.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:43 PM GMT
    Mil8 said
    Suecer4 saidthis sounds creepy... honestly.


    Doubtless the idea of replacing a living person's heart would have sounded creepy 100 years ago. My initial reaction was to agree with you. When one looks at it logically, however, there is not really a valid argument against it.


    Ok, here goes. We usually think of the purpose of medicine as curing disease. When a woman cannot carry a child to term, fertility treatments are in a sense fixing a problem with her body by allowing it to do what womenr's bodies generally do. Same goes for a heart. We don't replace defective ones. Indeed, same goes for gender corrective surgery -- we fix the body to match up with the "soul."

    But there is nothing to fix in a same sex couple that can't have a baby. The bodies of the patients are functioning properly.