NationStates Jolt Archive

As though we don't have enough threads about homosexuality already, here's something else about it.

I have heard recently that people are working on developing a way for two egg cells to somehow produce an embryo, without needing a sperm cell. I am endeavouring to find more information, as I am not sure if I misheard or something. I can't seem to find much right now, so for the moment, I am venturing into the hypothetical:

Many people's argument is that marriage is for the purpose of two indviduals procreating together.
If, hypothetically, it were the case that two women could reprouce together, would you still be opposed to two women getting hitched? Or do you have other arguments against it on top of that?

The idea of using only women to create children has been known to be hypothetically possible for a bit.

But basically it wouldn't invalidate the argument because that would require a surgical procedure and isn't "natural."

parthenogenesis - [Gr.,=virgin birth], in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. No successful experiments with human parthenogenesis have been reported.

parthenogenesis - [Gr.,=virgin birth], in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. No successful experiments with human parthenogenesis have been reported.

Fertilization would occur, just not by a sperm...

I am for gay marriage if the chicks are hot.

Seriuosly though, using that theory, we could only allow gay women to marry. Would it be fair to allow only women to marry each other and not give equal rights to men?

Would it be fair to allow only women to marry each other and not give equal rights to men?
I say it's unfair in the first place to disallow gay marriage at all, but that's just me.

I say it's unfair in the first place to disallow gay marriage at all, but that's just me.
I am too but I do not think taht theory allows for gay men to get married because they can not reproduce with each other.

parthenogenesis - [Gr.,=virgin birth], in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. No successful experiments with human parthenogenesis have been reported.

Though way back when I was in high school my genetics teacher told me they had successfully done it with rabbits.

I am too but I do not think taht theory allows for gay men to get married because they can not reproduce with each other.
Well, some people are using the inability to reproduce as a "scientific" argument against it.

Well, some people are using the inability to reproduce as a "scientific" argument against it.
I know. Both are wrong. A theory using reproduction has many flaws and should not be used by either side.

You misspelled "argument"

You misspelled "argument"
:eek:
Whoops.
And I'm usually a grammar Nazi too!
For shame, for shame!
I shall have to pop over to the thread about suicide and commit seppuku to save my honor.
:D

I remember reading a while back that they had managed to get both sperm and egg to grow from a single stem cell. What would have been fucked up is if they had let it fertilize itself! :eek:

What a nightmare.

http://www.midatlantic.net/8x10/frankenstein.jpg

What exactly does that picture of Frankenstein's monster have to do with this?
Are you trying to make this out to be some sort of abomination?

Maybe he was commenting on my post about the idea of a sperm and egg from the same stem cell fertilizing each other.

But that's besides the point. If both sperm and eggs can be grown from a single stem cell, then logically one woman could impregnate another, which would be totally awesome. As for guys, they could always use a surrogate parent.

Many people's argument is that marriage is for the purpose of two indviduals procreating together.
If, hypothetically, it were the case that two women could reprouce together, would you still be opposed to two women getting hitched? Or do you have other arguments against it on top of that?
the argument that marriage is for procreation can be easily invalidated without resorting to cloning. there are currently over 4 million American married couples who say they are "childless by choice" and have no intention to have children. we don't currently require proof of fertility before a marriage, and we allow people who KNOW they are infertile to marry. we allow women past menopause to wed. we allow marriages for people who have had deliberate surgery to render themselves infertile (vasectomies/"tube tying").

furthermore, to claim that biological reproduction is the only way to build a family is an insult to all adopted children and adoptive families. to claim that the insertion of a penis into a vagina is the purpose of marriage is an insult to anybody who doesn't base their marriage purely on sex.

the claim that marriage is for procreation is, quite simply, a lie. American marriage has NEVER had that requirement. the procreation argument is just another empty angle being tried by the homophobes; their actual reasons for wishing to deny gay marriage are bigotry, ignorance, fear, and arrogance.

I agree with Bottle, and I'm prepared o throw a pie at whoever dosen't. ;)