Scientists look to straighten homosexual sheep

[mawilson 2,133]

How do two gay men, as a "couple", procreate?

Well, since you asked.....

Researchers in Newcastle grew the sperm from mouse embryonic stem cells and used them

to fertilise eggs, resulting in the birth of seven mice

...

Prof Nayernia also hopes to create sperm from female embryonic stem cells, and eventually,

eggs from stem cells.

If he is successful, the work could give single men and women the possibility of providing

both sperm and eggs for embryos - effectively allowing them to mate with themselves.

Gay couples would be able to have children which are genetically their own.

Source

[kaydee457 13]

How do two gay men, as a "couple", procreate?

Well, since you asked.....

Researchers in Newcastle grew the sperm from mouse embryonic stem cells and used them

to fertilise eggs, resulting in the birth of seven mice

...

Prof Nayernia also hopes to create sperm from female embryonic stem cells, and eventually,

eggs from stem cells.

If he is successful, the work could give single men and women the possibility of providing

both sperm and eggs for embryos - effectively allowing them to mate with themselves.

Gay couples would be able to have children which are genetically their own.

Source

Oh, thanks....That explains it all.......

[kaydee457 13]

What about people who just don't want kids? Do they have birth defects too?

People choose not to have children because that's their preference. Homosexuals usually argue that it's not just a preference or lifestyle choice, but rather that they are born homosexual.

But homosexuals aren't physically unable to procreate. They could if they wanted to. I don't understand what would be accomplished by "fixing" homosexuals.

Together, as a couple? Really, is there something you know that the rest of us don't?

How do two gay men, as a "couple", procreate?

No, not as a couple. As far as I know, gay men are not, as a group, infertile.

Break it down for me, I am just a dumb liberal, after all. What is the goal? To bring everyone back to the way things *should* be as you think nature would like it? They were *born* that way. How is that not natural?

sometimes, i wonder why i even try, ya know?

We all say the same thing about you guys too.

Yes, I suppose that you are dumb….Your words, not mine.

So you believe that nature intends to:

produce people with three legs, six toes, etc.

produce people with Autism

produce people with Cystic Fibrosis

Well, you get the idea- or do you?

How do I know what’s “natural”, or “should be”?

Well, if you don’t know the answer to that sister you’re really far gone….I can only hope you live in the state of Massachusetts (poetic justice).

I’ll not waste my time responding to your inquires from this point out…. They're clearly argumentative and biased.

Edited January 4, 2007 by kaydee457

[Jenn! 918]

Wow, you get heated pretty easily. Sleep tight!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Political jihad on VJ!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh, I see I'm still being quoted....Is that a good thing?

Anyone care to research the issue of redifining the "family" issue as it pertains to gays? Most people view the gay issue as a "victimless crime" and shrug their shoulders and walk away.....

A very liberal Hollywood has acclimarted, or at least wore us out, to the idea that gay lifestyles are "normal" and harmless......

Brokeback, anyone? Ellen anyone?

These are attempts by liberals to make normal something that most of us know, intuitively, to be very abnormal.......

BTW, homphobic is simply a sanitized label to attribute to those of us that are bigoted against gays...

Where does this "intuition" come from? That's kind of what I was getting at.... Unspoken assumptions arising out of an unconsciously accepted social construct.

If we're going to look at homosexuality - you might want to look at the high rates of depression and suicide compared with heterosexuals? How much of that depression is the result of an unwillingness to conform to that social construct and the pressure that is put on people who refuse to conform to expected norms of behaviour?

You are suggesting that social pressure contributes to their depression and suicides. How much of it might be a result of other personal problems they have, considering a large percentage of gays probably have other facets of their lifestyle that are also "unconventional". For example, don't gay men tend to have shorter relationships and more partners than straight men, which would mean more "break-ups" that could lead to depression?

That certainly could play a part . Its a complex issue. The question here is whether is whether homosexuality is a disease that should be genetically 'cured' (regardless of whether or not any of us approve of it).

Firstly, let's get our terminology straight. If anything, homosexuality would be a genetic defect, not a disease.....

Having said that, if my parents are typical of those with adolescents that are experimenting, or actually engaging in homosexuality, it is a defect, but in their minds one that's behavioral and not in ones genetic makeup, so to speak.....

My parents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on "therapy" for my brother will no discernable result. He still sought out a deviant homosexual lifestyle, eventually succumbing to AIDS.

If it is indeed a genetic, um, I'll say "aberration, or anomaly in ones genes" that predisposes a person to be attracted to same sex later in life, then in my personal opinion the aberration should be addressed, as it's clearly not what nature intended.

The "anomalous" condition should be disclosed to the parents of a newborn and then they would be allowed to choose their options.....

So, my position is that if this condition is identified as a genetic aberration, or defect, then it should be researched and medical options developed to nullify, or reverse the condition.

Any "cure" to homosexuality is irrelevant if the people concerned decide that they are happy with their lifestyle and choose to abstain.

The only remaining practical application of such a technology would then be to give parents the right to pick and choose the genetics of their offspring, which if we are talking about "nature" doesn't seem too "natural". Certainly not the sort of thing that would win any points with the religious crowd. (The "Nature" argument goes back to social ideology, BTW). The sex angle too is questionable - oral sex is a human invention, so is ####### sex - none of it is natural, or intended to produce children - but that's ok because its between members of the opposite sex.

Now if we're talking about a real genetic defect that severely inhibits a person's ability to function adequately in society - perhaps you should take a look at Downs Syndrome. I'd much rather my kid be gay than Downs...

Out of curiosity... do you think that homosexual people have made a valuable contribution to human history and our cultural development?

Edited January 4, 2007 by erekose

[Jenn! 918]

How are you comparing cystic fybrosis with homosexuality? As I mentioned, homosexuality does not mean infertility. You're condoning changing someone's sexuality in order to give them the *desire* to procreate. That's entirely different IMO from manipulating genes to give someone the *ability* to procreate. Furthermore, if you're ok with using modern technology to change people's sexuality you must then be ok with other modern technology that gives homosexuals a means to have genetic offspring.

[dani_christine 0]

How do two gay men, as a "couple", procreate?

Well, since you asked.....

Researchers in Newcastle grew the sperm from mouse embryonic stem cells and used them

to fertilise eggs, resulting in the birth of seven mice

...

Prof Nayernia also hopes to create sperm from female embryonic stem cells, and eventually,

eggs from stem cells.

If he is successful, the work could give single men and women the possibility of providing

both sperm and eggs for embryos - effectively allowing them to mate with themselves.

Gay couples would be able to have children which are genetically their own.

Source

that's not procreation. that's cloning. the scientific name for the procedure is somatic nuclear cell transfer. but thanks for playing.

[Fandango 1,439]

How do two gay men, as a "couple", procreate?

Well, since you asked.....

Researchers in Newcastle grew the sperm from mouse embryonic stem cells and used them

to fertilise eggs, resulting in the birth of seven mice

...

Prof Nayernia also hopes to create sperm from female embryonic stem cells, and eventually,

eggs from stem cells.

If he is successful, the work could give single men and women the possibility of providing

both sperm and eggs for embryos - effectively allowing them to mate with themselves.

Gay couples would be able to have children which are genetically their own.

Source

But cmon...it's Newcastle

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

rim

Ah...it all makes sense now.

Thank you so much. Not to "put a feather in my own cap", I should point out that I'm the only one in this thread that professes my bigotry concerning same sex anything.....

You are? You misread my post and called me a liberal

I apologize. I grow tired of beating off the liberals in this forum- jeesh there's so many.......

[Peikko 1,575]

What I would like to know is why on earth we need to increase the productivity of sheep production anyway? Is a 10% ram failure really so economically damaging to farming that this highly expensive research is even remotely necessary?

I would have thought by now most people have realised that quality not quantity should be the guiding principle of both food production and consumption.

[garya505 2]

Oh, I see I'm still being quoted....Is that a good thing?

Anyone care to research the issue of redifining the "family" issue as it pertains to gays? Most people view the gay issue as a "victimless crime" and shrug their shoulders and walk away.....

A very liberal Hollywood has acclimarted, or at least wore us out, to the idea that gay lifestyles are "normal" and harmless......

Brokeback, anyone? Ellen anyone?

These are attempts by liberals to make normal something that most of us know, intuitively, to be very abnormal.......

BTW, homphobic is simply a sanitized label to attribute to those of us that are bigoted against gays...

Where does this "intuition" come from? That's kind of what I was getting at.... Unspoken assumptions arising out of an unconsciously accepted social construct.

If we're going to look at homosexuality - you might want to look at the high rates of depression and suicide compared with heterosexuals? How much of that depression is the result of an unwillingness to conform to that social construct and the pressure that is put on people who refuse to conform to expected norms of behaviour?

You are suggesting that social pressure contributes to their depression and suicides. How much of it might be a result of other personal problems they have, considering a large percentage of gays probably have other facets of their lifestyle that are also "unconventional". For example, don't gay men tend to have shorter relationships and more partners than straight men, which would mean more "break-ups" that could lead to depression?

That certainly could play a part . Its a complex issue. The question here is whether is whether homosexuality is a disease that should be genetically 'cured' (regardless of whether or not any of us approve of it).

Firstly, let's get our terminology straight. If anything, homosexuality would be a genetic defect, not a disease.....

Having said that, if my parents are typical of those with adolescents that are experimenting, or actually engaging in homosexuality, it is a defect, but in their minds one that's behavioral and not in ones genetic makeup, so to speak.....

My parents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on "therapy" for my brother will no discernable result. He still sought out a deviant homosexual lifestyle, eventually succumbing to AIDS.

If it is indeed a genetic, um, I'll say "aberration, or anomaly in ones genes" that predisposes a person to be attracted to same sex later in life, then in my personal opinion the aberration should be addressed, as it's clearly not what nature intended.

The "anomalous" condition should be disclosed to the parents of a newborn and then they would be allowed to choose their options.....

So, my position is that if this condition is identified as a genetic aberration, or defect, then it should be researched and medical options developed to nullify, or reverse the condition.

Any "cure" to homosexuality is irrelevant if the people concerned decide that they are happy with their lifestyle and choose to abstain.

The only remaining practical application of such a technology would then be to give parents the right to pick and choose the genetics of their offspring, which if we are talking about "nature" doesn't seem too "natural". Certainly not the sort of thing that would win any points with the religious crowd. (The "Nature" argument goes back to social ideology, BTW). The sex angle too is questionable - oral sex is a human invention, so is ####### sex - none of it is natural, or intended to produce children - but that's ok because its between members of the opposite sex.

Now if we're talking about a real genetic defect that severely inhibits a person's ability to function adequately in society - perhaps you should take a look at Downs Syndrome. I'd much rather my kid be gay than Downs...

Out of curiosity... do you think that homosexual people have made a valuable contribution to human history and our cultural development?

It wouldn't be irrelevant to those gays who decided to get the cure, would it?

[garya505 2]

What I would like to know is why on earth we need to increase the productivity of sheep production anyway? Is a 10% ram failure really so economically damaging to farming that this highly expensive research is even remotely necessary?

I would have thought by now most people have realised that quality not quantity should be the guiding principle of both food production and consumption.

You obviously don't work in the business world. Most businesses are competitive, and that includes farming and ranching. If your competition figures out to regain that 10% and you don't, well you're finished.

[Peikko 1,575]

Erm, that's a 10% figure for rams that have trouble procreating...how can that possibly equate to a 10% increase in production or anything remotely measurable in business terms in comparison to the money involved in this research?

Ah, the food business, responsible for so many ills...you know, if more people actually bothered to work out how much of what they eat is just so much gimmick. Added value? Who to? Not peple's health, that's for sure.

Responsible farming can be economical and produce a healthy profit, but if you just buy into the pharmeceutical rhetoric, well, anything goes including turning cows into canibals and 'curing' sheep homosexuality.

The world really is going to the dogs...

[mawilson 2,133]

that's not procreation. that's cloning. the scientific name for the procedure is somatic nuclear cell transfer. but thanks for playing.

It's not cloning. Cloning refers to the procedure of creating a genetically identical copy

of the original using SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer). What the Newcastle scientists

have done is different -- they used stem cells to grow real sperm and eggs. Their

research makes it possible to grow sperm using one man's stem cells and eggs using

another man's stem cells and then use the sperm to fertilise the egg. Cool, isn't it?