Gay reproduction (M/M and F/F)

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
25,744
3,043
280
Earth
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.
 
Is your asshole going to be the birth canal?
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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. :)
 
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.

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.

IVF and its ilk still use the same process, they just bring the parts together in a different way. What is being discussed here is melding two genomes without using the original biological pathway.
 
Fudge packers are currently able to give birth to mud babies.

But abort them when they flush the toilet. ... :lol:

A lot of so-called "men" are really terrified by homosexuality.

Why don't you all get some counseling, buy your Viagra and mind your own business.
 
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. :)

The premise of your post is that once technology allows same sex people to reproduce then the argument against it being something "natural" goes away. Since surgery and furthering ones genome are not even in the same area code, never mind ballpark, your point doesnt exactly make much sense.

Our species has a way to keep it going, and it requires a male and a female for it to work, same as all other speicies. Its the natural biological way of doing things. All our technology does currently is modify existing life, not change the way it is initially created.
 
What is this Gay Day??
How many homosexual threads are we going to have in a day this week??
Damn

Just curious, but did you complain the other day in the thread about the 10 or 11 anti-gay threads too?

Didn't occur to me until your mention of it, but being a big fan of symmetry and balance, if we're gonna have daily anti-gay threads I think an equal number of pro-gay threads is in order.

So all the conservatives and anti-gay folk can thank iamwhatiseem for sparking the idea of balancing out the anti-gay rhetoric. ;)
 
Last edited:
delta:

what do yo consider natural? man, using science or something else, to change something from it's original form or function? or what?
 
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.
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top