Gay reproduction (M/M and F/F)

[Delta4Embassy]

Think it depends a bit on the context. Broadly, I'd say anything happening here on planet Earth is natural. Anything off-world is 'extranatural.'

In the case of science enabling something an organism can't do natively, hmm. Have to think about that for a moment. ...We can fly using science though we can't naturally. Probably a ton of things made possible by way of science. On the more human-level, we're now able to restore some causes of people being blind or deaf because of technology. We're making fish flourescent colors splicing their genes, breeding hypoallergenic pets for owners with allergies, curing diseases with medicine, etc.

If we can one day enable gay couples to reproduce I have no objection. Could frankly give a poop what other people do reproductively.

In all those other cases if we lose our technology the species will continue. for the case of M/M F/F reproduction this is not the case.

Ya...Er no actually. Next time a superbug comes up imagine if no medicine to treat it. A handful might continue on isolated islands like, but they'd die off from insufficient breeding pairs.

 

[Vox]

Its less sexual reproduction and more splicing. It still doesnt eliminate the fact that biologically same sex relations just dont make any sense. Its not a judgement on the moral implications of allowing them, simply that they really dont jive with nature, i.e. the progression and promotion of ones genome.

Reproduction's reproduction. No one asks a person how they were born. And your same arguement could be leveled at IVF.

There's something wrong with people who use ivf. A medical issue. There's no medical issue with Fags not being able to reproduce with each other.

and there is a lot of very wrong with IFV babies. Contrary to popular belief the miniscule amount are born without any problems, the vast majority have the whole host of health issues and the learning disabilities are usually the smaller ones.

 

[Vox]

Think it depends a bit on the context. Broadly, I'd say anything happening here on planet Earth is natural. Anything off-world is 'extranatural.'

In the case of science enabling something an organism can't do natively, hmm. Have to think about that for a moment. ...We can fly using science though we can't naturally. Probably a ton of things made possible by way of science. On the more human-level, we're now able to restore some causes of people being blind or deaf because of technology. We're making fish flourescent colors splicing their genes, breeding hypoallergenic pets for owners with allergies, curing diseases with medicine, etc.

If we can one day enable gay couples to reproduce I have no objection. Could frankly give a poop what other people do reproductively.

In all those other cases if we lose our technology the species will continue. for the case of M/M F/F reproduction this is not the case.

Ya...Er no actually. Next time a superbug comes up imagine if no medicine to treat it. A handful might continue on isolated islands like, but they'd die off from insufficient breeding pairs.

don't mix apples and oranges. treating the disease has absolutely nothing in common with creating the unnatural way to reproduce.

 

[Vox]

So we shouldn't remove appendixes or tonsils? They're natural parts of the body, and most people's work fine. Never had either of mine removed. But because we can, sometimes we do.

Just because gays can't reproduce naturally, does that mean if the technology came to exist enabling them to do so it shouldn't be used? Can offer an opinion on this either way, I wont judge you. Judge you on other things already.

No, we should not. And we do not.

we remove sick appendices and tonsils and other parts as well. and sometimes we don't remove them even if they are sick - we just treat them.

they ARE needed parts of the body.

 

[novasteve]

So we shouldn't remove appendixes or tonsils? They're natural parts of the body, and most people's work fine. Never had either of mine removed. But because we can, sometimes we do.

Just because gays can't reproduce naturally, does that mean if the technology came to exist enabling them to do so it shouldn't be used? Can offer an opinion on this either way, I wont judge you. Judge you on other things already.

No, we should not. And we do not.

we remove sick appendices and tonsils and other parts as well. and sometimes we don't remove them even if they are sick - we just treat them.

they ARE needed parts of the body.

Liberals believe in removing healthy body parts. Think trannies

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Up until recently we still removed healthy appendixes. Now we know of course what they do so don't remove them any more.

 

[bodecea]

I first heard about this on an episode of "Through The Wormhole." Looking into it, I found this:

Sexual Reproduction for Same Sex Couples | The Chromosome Chronicles

"One of the common arguments against gay marriage goes something like this: marriage is an institution that is meant to support reproduction, and same-sex couples can’t sexually reproduce. Full disclosure: I support gay marriage. However, regardless of my opinion, this entry will help debunk this specific argument. More importantly, I will outline three important discoveries that will one day allow same sex couples to have biological children that are purely made from their genes...

...These three techniques, once perfected will lead to the ability for male/male and female/female couples to have biological children, children who are a combination of their own genes."


Still theoretical, but everything's theoretical until somoene does it.

Coupling! Coupling! CouplingCouplingCoupling!


There.

 

[bodecea]

Think it depends a bit on the context. Broadly, I'd say anything happening here on planet Earth is natural. Anything off-world is 'extranatural.'

In the case of science enabling something an organism can't do natively, hmm. Have to think about that for a moment. ...We can fly using science though we can't naturally. Probably a ton of things made possible by way of science. On the more human-level, we're now able to restore some causes of people being blind or deaf because of technology. We're making fish flourescent colors splicing their genes, breeding hypoallergenic pets for owners with allergies, curing diseases with medicine, etc.

If we can one day enable gay couples to reproduce I have no objection. Could frankly give a poop what other people do reproductively.

It IS amazing how many suddenly become Luddites when it's something they think is icky....even tho it doesn't affect them at all.

 

[Yurt]

Think it depends a bit on the context. Broadly, I'd say anything happening here on planet Earth is natural. Anything off-world is 'extranatural.'

In the case of science enabling something an organism can't do natively, hmm. Have to think about that for a moment. ...We can fly using science though we can't naturally. Probably a ton of things made possible by way of science. On the more human-level, we're now able to restore some causes of people being blind or deaf because of technology. We're making fish flourescent colors splicing their genes, breeding hypoallergenic pets for owners with allergies, curing diseases with medicine, etc.

If we can one day enable gay couples to reproduce I have no objection. Could frankly give a poop what other people do reproductively.

interesting points. but isn't technology also "natural"?

i think when people speak of reproductive means, they speak in terms of a woman carrying a child, not a man. if science were to change that, that would not be natural. for example, flying was and is always natural, we simply lacked the scientific understanding to fly. i believe there is only one species on this planet in which the male carries the sperm to egg to birth their offspring, iirc, it is the underwater horse or something, sorry, forget the name.

imo, to change "nature" is to change the way of things. we can scientifically/medically give women a penis, doesn't mean it is natural. we can also give men a vagina, doesn't mean it is natural.

what exactly is your point?

 

[novasteve]

Up until recently we still removed healthy appendixes. Now we know of course what they do so don't remove them any more.

If you were going on a voyage to sone place with limited medical access or to the space station it makes sense to have your appendix removed. Having your dick removed is insanity.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Seahorse. Some other critters similar.

I never made the arguement it's right or wrong because of it being natural or not. I replied to those who did. Might ask them what their point was

I would say though that but for a few exceptions (grey goo and strangelets coming to mind) anything science can do, if it's only helping loving couples reproduce, it should do.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Up until recently we still removed healthy appendixes. Now we know of course what they do so don't remove them any more.

If you were going on a voyage to sone place with limited medical access or to the space station it makes sense to have your appendix removed. Having your dick removed is insanity.

Why the space station? ...Oh! You mean like if it was threatening to rupture and not having the ability to get it out quickly?

 

[Meathead]

I first heard about this on an episode of "Through The Wormhole." Looking into it, I found this:

Sexual Reproduction for Same Sex Couples | The Chromosome Chronicles

"One of the common arguments against gay marriage goes something like this: marriage is an institution that is meant to support reproduction, and same-sex couples can’t sexually reproduce. Full disclosure: I support gay marriage. However, regardless of my opinion, this entry will help debunk this specific argument. More importantly, I will outline three important discoveries that will one day allow same sex couples to have biological children that are purely made from their genes...

...These three techniques, once perfected will lead to the ability for male/male and female/female couples to have biological children, children who are a combination of their own genes."


Still theoretical, but everything's theoretical until somoene does it.

Of course Obamacare would pay for this, but then everyone will be covered.

 

[Yurt]

Seahorse. Some other critters similar.

I never made the arguement it's right or wrong because of it being natural or not. I replied to those who did. Might ask them what their point was

I would say though that but for a few exceptions (grey goo and strangelets coming to mind) anything science can do, if it's only helping loving couples reproduce, it should do.

devil's advocate....got it

 

[martybegan]

Think it depends a bit on the context. Broadly, I'd say anything happening here on planet Earth is natural. Anything off-world is 'extranatural.'

In the case of science enabling something an organism can't do natively, hmm. Have to think about that for a moment. ...We can fly using science though we can't naturally. Probably a ton of things made possible by way of science. On the more human-level, we're now able to restore some causes of people being blind or deaf because of technology. We're making fish flourescent colors splicing their genes, breeding hypoallergenic pets for owners with allergies, curing diseases with medicine, etc.

If we can one day enable gay couples to reproduce I have no objection. Could frankly give a poop what other people do reproductively.

In all those other cases if we lose our technology the species will continue. for the case of M/M F/F reproduction this is not the case.

Ya...Er no actually. Next time a superbug comes up imagine if no medicine to treat it. A handful might continue on isolated islands like, but they'd die off from insufficient breeding pairs.

It was called the bubonic plague, and while human populations were decimated, they did not dissapear entirely.

 

[martybegan]

Seahorse. Some other critters similar.

I never made the arguement it's right or wrong because of it being natural or not. I replied to those who did. Might ask them what their point was

I would say though that but for a few exceptions (grey goo and strangelets coming to mind) anything science can do, if it's only helping loving couples reproduce, it should do.

devil's advocate....got it

You also have to remember that step 1 only works for lesbians, i.e. being able to fuse genetic material without the corresponding opposite sexual material. One still needs a womb, and only women got that so far.

Most of this type of speculation leads to really really bad lesbian sci-fi where all the men are gone.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In all those other cases if we lose our technology the species will continue. for the case of M/M F/F reproduction this is not the case.

Ya...Er no actually. Next time a superbug comes up imagine if no medicine to treat it. A handful might continue on isolated islands like, but they'd die off from insufficient breeding pairs.

It was called the bubonic plague, and while human populations were decimated, they did not dissapear entirely.

Tulerimia is still with us. Handfull of cases every year in the US. Was thinking like Spanish Flu and the like. And those are just single instances. Without tech and medicine, those would run unchecked and be poppin up all over.

 

[Vox]

Up until recently we still removed healthy appendixes. Now we know of course what they do so don't remove them any more.

nope, we did not.

where do you get such an idiocy?

 

[martybegan]

Ya...Er no actually. Next time a superbug comes up imagine if no medicine to treat it. A handful might continue on isolated islands like, but they'd die off from insufficient breeding pairs.

It was called the bubonic plague, and while human populations were decimated, they did not dissapear entirely.

Tulerimia is still with us. Handfull of cases every year in the US. Was thinking like Spanish Flu and the like. And those are just single instances. Without tech and medicine, those would run unchecked and be poppin up all over.

There was not treatment for spanish flu either, and it died out. Nothing ever seen so far meets the situation you are trying to meet. In fact, the biggest gain in fighting disease isnt medicine or vaccines, but figuring out how it was pread. Once we understood that concepts like quarantine and precautions against transmission to medical people became possible.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Seahorse. Some other critters similar.

I never made the arguement it's right or wrong because of it being natural or not. I replied to those who did. Might ask them what their point was

I would say though that but for a few exceptions (grey goo and strangelets coming to mind) anything science can do, if it's only helping loving couples reproduce, it should do.

devil's advocate....got it

You also have to remember that step 1 only works for lesbians, i.e. being able to fuse genetic material without the corresponding opposite sexual material. One still needs a womb, and only women got that so far.

Most of this type of speculation leads to really really bad lesbian sci-fi where all the men are gone.

No such thing as bad lesbian sci-fi

Interestingly, though not in people, some female animals can become spontaneously pregnant, so-called virginal birth. Some sharks, and other animals can do it in all-female groups. Some kind of survival of the species mechanism kicks in if no males are around. DNA tests confirm just a single parent's DNA in the offspring.

With how bored geneticists make things glow in the dark, and give chicken teeth, I wouldn't rule out gay reproduction or even virginal births someday.