turbonium Posted July 1, 2005 #151 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Turbonium, what if we called it aCivil Union? It's the Kiwi equivalent of marriage. Open to every-one the way it should be, even the hetrosexual couples are doing it. 708860[/snapback] I think that's great, kismit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Pancake Posted July 1, 2005 #152 Share Posted July 1, 2005 (edited) I read most of the thread don't know if this was said already, but about the comment that homosexuals can't reproduce soon will be a fallacy as an argument against homosexuality at least for lesbians. Japanese and Korean scientist found a way to take two female eggs from rats and produced a child, by taking one of the eggs and tricking it into being a male egg and creating a zygote. And don't think it produced a girl it turned out to be a healthy male rat. But mined the fact it did take hundred of trials the research is still relatively new News April 22, 2004 Fatherless Mice Created in Lab Men--who needs them? The sentiment has been voiced by countless lovelorn women, but from a reproductive standpoint, we mammals need males a great deal. Many plants and lower animals, such as insects and reptiles, can reproduce asexually using only maternal DNA through a process termed parthenogenesis. This mechanism does not occur naturally in mammals, and researchers have long been unable to induce it in the laboratory. Now scientists writing in the journal Nature report having created the first fatherless mice, one of which has survived to adulthood and given birth to her own young. Sexual reproduction combines genetic material from an egg and a sperm, and both copies of DNA contribute equally to the expression of most genes. In a subset of genes regulating development, however, only one copy is turned on. This phenomenon, called genomic imprinting, ensures genetic input from both parents. Because a parthenote contains a double dose of maternal DNA, its genome would not normally activate paternally imprinted genes, hence the failure of mammals to successfully reproduce this way. In earlier experiments, Tomohiro Kono of the Tokyo University of Agriculture and his colleagues knocked out a key maternally imprinted gene, H19, in one strand of DNA taken from an egg cell, and then fused the altered egg with a normal oocyte. Embryos produced this way developed almost to term, but died before birth. In the new work, the researchers achieved success by adding a twist: they further manipulated the DNA to inactivate a mechanism blocking a related paternal gene, Igf2, from switching on in the maternal genome--in effect normalizing the expression of the two genes. To their surprise, altering this pair of genes had a widespread impact on the expression of more than 1,000 other genes, demonstrating the complex role of genomic imprinting in mammalian development. [The mouse pictured above is not one of the "virgin birth" mice discussed in this story. Along with the group’s previous work, the study "provides good evidence that incorrect expression of imprinted genes is one of the major reasons why natural parthenogenesis in mammals has not been possible," write University of Sydney embryologists David A. F. Loebel and Patrick P. L. Tam in an accompanying commentary. Until the function of imprinted genes is better understood, they note, "it seems that the participation of the father in reproduction will remain necessary." --Alla Katsnelson source Unfertilized eggs yield fatherless mouse By Carey Goldberg, Globe Staff | April 22, 2004 In a genetic version of "Heather Has Two Mommies," researchers have combined two unfertilized eggs to create a fully fatherless mouse. The mouse, named Kaguya after a Japanese princess of legend, grew normally to adulthood and bore her own young. Researchers created her with a technique called parthenogenesis, or virgin birth, which occurs naturally in lower creatures from insects to snakes, but was long thought to be impossible in mammals. The feat, to be reported in today's issue of the journal "Nature," should prompt no worry in men that they will soon become reproductively obsolete, researchers say, because the laboratory tricks used were complex, inefficient, and many years away from possible use in humans. But its success does add a new chapter in the proliferation of novel ways to reproduce, from in vitro fertilization to cloning. "In principle, you can do without dad for fertilization," said Kevin Eggan, a Harvard developmental biologist. Scientifically, the experiment marks progress in understanding a key aspect of mammals' sexual reproduction called genetic imprinting -- a process in which certain genes in a fetus are turned off or on depending on whether they are inherited from the mother or the father. Imprinting is believed to stem from an evolutionary battle between the sexes for the mother's resources in the womb. In many mammals, embryos from different fathers may be competing in the same pregnancy, so it is in the interest of each father's genes to program the offspring to grow as big and strong as possible, theory goes. But mothers' evolutionary interest lies in having as many babies as possible, so their genes try to program offspring to be of more moderate size. During the embryo's development, some genes from mammal fathers are thus likelier to turn on to spur growth, while some genes from the mother are likelier to turn on to limit growth. Scientists believe this competition is essential to the healthy development of a mammal, which explains why attempts at parthenogenesis in mammals -- using chemicals or other means to coax an egg into dividing and growing without sperm -- have never worked. Researchers have managed to spur mammal eggs -- even human eggs -- to start dividing and growing without help from sperm, but only briefly, never all the way to birth. Cloning, which has successfully yielded several kinds of mammals, uses genetic material already created by sexual reproduction. Only lower species reproduce successfully in females-only fashion, using a single unfertilized egg. In bees and ants, for example, male drones come from unfertilized eggs, while queens and female workers are born from fertilized eggs. In the "Nature" report, a team led by Tomohiro Kono of the Tokyo University of Agriculture combined eggs from two female mice, one normal and one a newborn in which two genes had been altered in an attempt to simulate the effect of a father's imprinting The experiment, tried initially on 457 eggs, yielded eight live embryos, according to autopsies performed on the host mothers. One, Kaguya, grew up and reproduced by mating in standard fashion. Kaguya and her siblings, which did not survive, had surprisingly normal gene activity, the researchers noted. "It's amazing that altering the expression of just two imprinted genes can have a ripple effect on the rest of the genome," an accompanying commentary in "Nature" said. The "Nature" paper does seem to prove that the only thing stopping mammals from reproducing through parthenogenesis is imprinting, said several biologists unconnected to the paper. But it raises more questions than it answers, they said, because it is so baffling that the researchers' gene manipulation could have such a gigantic effect. Apparently, even when an animal's imprinting is radically altered, "there can be mechanisms in those extreme situations that can compensate" enough to allow for normal development," said Eggan, the Harvard biologist. The researchers clearly showed that healthy mice could be produced without male fertilization, said Rudolf Jaenisch, a cloning specialist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But "what the mechanism is, I find, is not answered, so there are many, many questions opened," Jaenisch said. Eggan said he deeply doubted the parthenogenesis technique would ever be used in humans. People willing to go to such lengths will be likelier to opt for cloning if it ever becomes medically and socially acceptable, he said. It is, however, "the only option for two women to reproduce," he said. "It shows in principle that it's possible. But it's not going to happen." "Heather Has Two Mommies" is a well-known book, published in 1989, that describes a small girl with two lesbian mothers and promotes the acceptance of nontraditional families. Advances in mammal parthenogenesis could lead to ways to produce therapeutically useful human stem cells without destroying embryos that might otherwise have grown into human beings, some researchers say. Last year, scientists at a Maryland biotech company called Stemron first reported growing human parthenogenetic embryos, or "parthenotes," to the point that stem cells could be taken from them. Also last year, Ian Wilmut, the scientist known for cloning Dolly the sheep, received British government permission to pursue such an approach. Progress in understanding genetic imprinting could eventually have medical impact as well: Imprinting is known to be involved in certain genetic diseases, including forms of mental retardation. "As a result of this kind of work, we may learn that there are even more developmental events affected by imprinting," said Douglas Powers, a developmental biologist and chief scientific officer of Boston IVF, an infertility clinic. "This is opening the door to understanding those." source And if you want here is a link to a google search the google search Edited July 1, 2005 by Super Pancake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted July 1, 2005 #153 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I sleep fine... I don't go around screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and think people are lesser because they don't follow your notion of human normalicy. 708852[/snapback] ?? What does that mean - that I care too much about children? Or that I should even care at all about the effects on their lives? Guilty as charged - and the children are the beautiful future and hope for this little blue marble!! Gays are not in any way lesser as people than anyone else - but homosexuality does have an impact on society as a whole, and I choose to say what that impact may involve as relevant policies are enacted in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabutarian Posted July 1, 2005 #154 Share Posted July 1, 2005 *Sigh* Homosexuality is only a problem because of people like you, Turbonium... It's all in your head. By believing that it is a problem, you create the hostile social climate that makes it become one. I hate to sound like I'm preaching, but if everyone could keep their nose out of other people's business, then I'm quite sure that half of the problems the world has today would vanish. "Seperate but equal." Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, I know. SEGREGATATION MANTRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isis-999 Posted July 1, 2005 #155 Share Posted July 1, 2005 the only reason men or some men do not gays is because they doubt there own man hood, but i bet if you ask those same men they have no problem with two women, i have heard it time and time again from the men my husband too, i work with, two men is sick two women sexy say what does that say go figure, Kabutarian you are correct people need to mind there own business and not worry about who is sleeping with who! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacca Posted July 1, 2005 #156 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Sorry if this has already been brought up but all i have read is it is against god and the its wrong because they can't reproduce? So you have never had sex for anything other then the creation of a child? because if you have then you are no different!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabutarian Posted July 1, 2005 #157 Share Posted July 1, 2005 (edited) Sorry if this has already been brought up but all i have read is it is against god and the its wrong because they can't reproduce? So you have never had sex for anything other then the creation of a child? because if you have then you are no different!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 709713[/snapback] "Quick, get rid of condoms! Get rid of the pill! Get rid of anything that could prevent the conception of a child! Everyone, pick a partner, hop in bed, and get to work! We've got a world to overpopulate here!" Yeah, sounds ridiculous from this end of the spectrum, too. Edited July 1, 2005 by Kabutarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverCougar Posted July 2, 2005 #158 Share Posted July 2, 2005 *plots ways to make herself steril* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isis-999 Posted July 2, 2005 #159 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Sorry if this has already been brought up but all i have read is it is against god and the its wrong because they can't reproduce? So you have never had sex for anything other then the creation of a child? because if you have then you are no different!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 709713[/snapback] good point, it's a shame some people are so narrow minded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Paranoid Android Posted July 2, 2005 #160 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Sorry if this has already been brought up but all i have read is it is against god and the its wrong because they can't reproduce? So you have never had sex for anything other then the creation of a child? because if you have then you are no different!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 709713[/snapback] good point, it's a shame some people are so narrow minded 710241[/snapback] I'm not narrow minded. I discriminate equally If you notice all my posts on this subject I have never singled out any particular person and/or minority group, but rather have tried to address the concept of sex in general from a biblical perspective. I understand that not everyone believes and accepts this view, but isn't that what this forum is for? to share ideas and beliefs on religion/spirituality/beliefs. All the best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Raven Posted July 2, 2005 #161 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Think about it for a minute - what if you had grown up with two "dads" as a boy? That would be your picture of a regular, normal relationship, and normal sexual partner! Then you start school, and find out that boys prefer girls! Or any of thousands of possible scenarios. Sorry, that is the nightmare I envision for the future with the "normalization" of gay lifestyle with "marriage" as the next step. Science should identify the cause of this genetic defect and maybe society can tilt it's way a little bit back towards being healthy again. 708728[/snapback] "I think. Or, I know." You want people to have time to fully think about your post and not use common labels, but I've seen few that use more than you do, and just assume the truth, when in reality it lacks fact. What are these labels? Saying gays are not natural, saying gays are a defect, talking about gays raising gay children -- it's all hogwash if you don't have any evidence to back it up. You can't expect to be labeling, name calling, and bashing a particular group, then trying to make others not use the same labels on you. When someone is burned by fire, they usually fight back with fire; and even more of it. Your argument about two gays raising a child is ridiculous. Even though a gay man is attracted to men, they are still biologically men, and you know what; even gays can have manly traits. If they are raising a male child, for example, the child will just recognize that he has two parents of the same gender raising him -- because, the child doesn't have to be "born gay" and can in fact let hormones guide his sexual desires -- and I bet he will still be attracted to women. Children learn from and mock their parents, but society as a whole and the people around the child are an integral part of their development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornlivedie Posted July 2, 2005 #162 Share Posted July 2, 2005 I Quote 'Whatever floats your boat' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted July 2, 2005 #163 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Man...I can't believe I leave one thread behind arguing this exact crap, only to find another one... People, people...homosexuality is not contagious, it is not a plague, and it is certainly not an "abomination". A straight person cannot become gay by sharing a household with a gay person, anymore than a right handed person can become left handed by sharing a household with a left handed person. It's the same crap...the exact same crap...where on earth do these people think homosexuals come from is sexuality is "learned"? Surely all the homosexuals would have "learned" heterosexuality from their parents if that was even remotely the case!? Christ...it's depressing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girty1600 Posted July 2, 2005 #164 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Well, Sera, It's like this. Johny's mom put a plant in his room when he was seven years old and that's why he's gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted July 2, 2005 #165 Share Posted July 2, 2005 No, it's like this. The mother's of certain people posting in this thread put a plant in their room. One day, they decided to strip that plant's leaves, roll them up, and smoke them. And that's why they think they way they do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girty1600 Posted July 2, 2005 #166 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Yeah, potheads should be passive and caring; not hateful blind-hearted jerks. I blame religion for thiss rash of bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted July 2, 2005 #167 Share Posted July 2, 2005 I'm afraid it is very hard not to blame religion...although I also blame the education system. As my good buddy Shady pointed out on another thread, homosexuality is basically taboo in education at the moment...which is largly why so many people grow up with such a shocking lack of understanding of it. I could tell you what causes homosexuality...I could tell you how it happens, what makes it happen, the odds of it happening, and while I'm at it, I'd explain why men have nipples. I know this because, rather than being an ignorant (and probably bible driven) bigot, I did what many of these people have likely never done in their lives...I picked up a book and read about it. To me, homosexuality is just like the colour of a person's eyes or hair...or whether they're left or right handed...it's simply a characteristic that they're born with, and is utterly meaningless to me in evaluating them as a person. This is part due to the fact that I educated myself, and got my facts straight...something others would rather forgoe, and instead scream "homosexuals are an abomination because god says so!" Well, research says otherwise. Go read a book that actually talks sense for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle Posted July 2, 2005 #168 Share Posted July 2, 2005 I'm gonna be the party pooper I'm afraid. We've done this subject to death so many times now I really don't see the point in going over the same old arguments yet again. Thread closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts