Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[mal]

From the article:

US scientists are now trying to produce viable human embryos after the process, known as haploidisation, proved successful in experiments on mice.

That sounds like reality. Even if it hasn't happened yet, it can happen and then the argument that marriage is sacred because of procreation will be even dumber than it is now.

I'm sorry but I can't stop myself

The article was published in 2002 moron!

Read the freaking date for god sakes

He is providing an Excellent example of what I said earlier... Liberals Hate that Reality doesn't jive with the way they wished things were and will go to Absurd lengths arguing against Reality.

KNB is Mentally Ill.



peace...

 

[KNB]

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Have you ever heard of the internet?

Scientists make embryos with 2 women, 1 man

Oh, but that's secular science from 2012! And read the article: "and it is not clear when or even if the technique will be put to use." Therefore, it's not reality, right? Certainly not the reality that was dictated by the invisible man in the sky two millennia ago.........

 

[Pop23]

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Have you ever heard of the internet?

Scientists make embryos with 2 women, 1 man

Oh, but that's secular science from 2012! And read the article: "and it is not clear when or even if the technique will be put to use." Therefore, it's not reality, right? Certainly not the reality that was dictated by the invisible man in the sky two millennia ago.........

Do you read the articles. This one still involves both sexes.

So the dynamic still changes even if successful. How long do you think FDA would hold this up when it takes 3 years to get a new type of sun tan lotion approved.

And the risk of an abnormal birth? MONUMENTAL. What scientist will want to risk creating fankenbaby?

You are dumber then I even initially thought.

And that crack about the internet. Don't supply links that are fails and then try to justify them by implying it was anybody else fault but your own.

You are not only gullible, but dishonest by doing so.

 

[KNB]

Jesus monkey-fucking Christ on a pogo stick............

Do you know how to think?

Let's go over this really slowly, okay?............

The idea that same-sex couples are not equal to hetero couples is fucking retarded because advances in human genetics are making it possible for same-sex couples to have their own children.

What dynamic changes? Your assertion was that interracial hetero couples have to worry about pregnancy, delivery, birth defects, etc., and that same-sex couples aren't equal. And yet there are advances in genetics that can allow same-sex couples to become pregnant and face all of the same complications and trials that hetero couples face.

When two women have a baby without a man, will that female same-sex couple face the same risks of pregnancy that every other pregnant woman has ever faced? Yes or no? The answer is "yes".

 

[Pop23]

And while your doing your searches [MENTION=45917]KNB[/MENTION] please post a single post I have made on this subject regarding religion. I'd appreciate some honesty

 

[KNB]

Are you saying that you're trying to make a non-religious argument against gay marriage?

What is your argument?

 

[Pop23]

Jesus monkey-fucking Christ on a pogo stick............

Do you know how to think?

Let's go over this really slowly, okay?............

The idea that same-sex couples are not equal to hetero couples is fucking retarded because advances in human genetics are making it possible for same-sex couples to have their own children.

What dynamic changes? Your assertion was that interracial hetero couples have to worry about pregnancy, delivery, birth defects, etc., and that same-sex couples aren't equal. And yet there are advances in genetics that can allow same-sex couples to become pregnant and face all of the same complications and trials that hetero couples face.

When two women have a baby without a man, will that female same-sex couple face the same risks of pregnancy that every other pregnant woman has ever faced? Yes or no? The answer is "yes".

WHEN, WHEN, WHEN

When monkeys fly

When space aliens gain the right to vote

When?

You chide us when you can't provide one single thread of evidence?

Your are cumbersome and boring

Invest in those research facilities if your so damn sure it can happen. When the mother of frankenbaby goes after the investors for the horrid defects her child has, make sure you are first in line to give up your wealth

I'm sure you speak slowly, you sure think at the same rate

 

[Pop23]

Are you saying that you're trying to make a non-religious argument against gay marriage?

What is your argument?

Reread my post and do your homework. My arguments have never been based on religion.

You seem surprised

 

[KNB]

You make an excellent point except for being entirely wrong.

Geneticists can remove terrible diseases and ailment that the child will inherit from one of their parents' genes. This means a lower chance of serious harm to the child in the womb and in the world.

"About 1 in every 5,000 children inherits a disease caused by defective mitochondrial genes. The defects can cause many rare diseases with a host of symptoms, including strokes, epilepsy, dementia, blindness, deafness, kidney failure and heart disease."

 

[KNB]

Are you saying that you're trying to make a non-religious argument against gay marriage?

What is your argument?

Reread my post and do your homework. My arguments have never been based on religion.

You seem surprised

You tried to make a point somewhere in this discussion, right? What was that point? I read back through the thread but I couldn't find where you made a point.

 

[Pop23]

Are you saying that you're trying to make a non-religious argument against gay marriage?

What is your argument?

Reread my post and do your homework. My arguments have never been based on religion.

You seem surprised

You tried to make a point somewhere in this discussion, right? What was that point? I read back through the thread but I couldn't find where you made a point.

Here is the closest I will come to a religious posting

And the blind will never see

You go invest in synthetic sperm. And say hello to Captain Kirk while your at it.

If you want to discuss any of my excellent points, wake me up, cuz you bore me to death.

 

[Pop23]

You make an excellent point except for being entirely wrong.

Geneticists can remove terrible diseases and ailment that the child will inherit from one of their parents' genes. This means a lower chance of serious harm to the child in the womb and in the world.

"About 1 in every 5,000 children inherits a disease caused by defective mitochondrial genes. The defects can cause many rare diseases with a host of symptoms, including strokes, epilepsy, dementia, blindness, deafness, kidney failure and heart disease."

Removing defects and creating life are two extraordinarily different things.

Do yourself a favor and stop exhibiting OCD traits. It's unbecoming.

 

[KNB]

Do you have any legitimate argument against gay marriage? One that cannot be shut down by the simple sentence, "There is no law against it."?

What does the law say about something that is not illegal? Is it therefore legal? Gay marriage is not illegal under any US law, and the laws that have been passed to that effect have been ruled unconstitutional for violating gay couples' rights, so why is there any debate at all whether or not to allow gay marriage? It's already allowed. It's not illegal. What argument do you have?

 

[GreenBean]

Jesus monkey-fucking Christ on a pogo stick............

Do you know how to think?

Let's go over this really slowly, okay?............

The idea that same-sex couples are not equal to hetero couples is fucking retarded because advances in human genetics are making it possible for same-sex couples to have their own children.

What dynamic changes? Your assertion was that interracial hetero couples have to worry about pregnancy, delivery, birth defects, etc., and that same-sex couples aren't equal. And yet there are advances in genetics that can allow same-sex couples to become pregnant and face all of the same complications and trials that hetero couples face.

When two women have a baby without a man, will that female same-sex couple face the same risks of pregnancy that every other pregnant woman has ever faced? Yes or no? The answer is "yes".

Jesus monkey-fucking Christ on a pogo stick ...


Two women having a baby without a man would certainly be a curiousity. Consider that mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA is generally passed only from the mother, the female - not the male, to the offspring. It is extremely rare that the sperm contributes mtDNA , so in essence with an offspring derived from the genetic material of two females - you would either have a stillborn child, a naturally aborted fetus, a mutant child with birth defects or one extraordinary hybrid human being.

Genetics is not my field of expertise but I think it might be impossible ... though I could be wrong.

So far as Jesus fucking a monkey on a pogo stick - I shudder to think of the possibilities.

 

[Pop23]

There's no law against Martians marrying. Care to comment?

How about that the United States sent an Army into the Utah territories to insure marriage would be between between a single male and a single women in all states? Why'd they do that?

Why is the number two relevant in the law if it's not intended to be 1 male and 1 female. You do realize there are 2 genders right, and that the minimum number to procreate within a single unit is two.

Proceed, I'm going to bed. Can't wait to see more links about genetically invented humans, and the answers to the above in the morning.

 

[KNB]

There's no law against Martians marrying. Care to comment?

How about that the United States sent an Army into the Utah territories to insure marriage would be between between a single male and a single women in all states? Why'd they do that?

Why is the number two relevant in the law if it's not intended to be 1 male and 1 female. You do realize there are 2 genders right, and that the minimum number to procreate within a single unit is two.

Proceed, I'm going to bed. Can't wait to see more links about genetically invented humans, and the answers to the above in the morning.

Here you go, professor:

Politics, Ethics, and the Like…

The application of technology towards same-sex reproduction, in my eyes, is an advancement for both gay marriage and science. Scientifically, we are learning more about child development every year, and it will allow us to bring more healthy children into the world. For same-sex couples, the once impossible concept of a biological child is now a real possibility.

While I cannot see any ethical arguments against this type of procedure, I am open to a discussion about how far this may be pushing the envelope. In any case, I am still amazed every time I think about how far we have come with the ability to help people through science.
Sexual Reproduction for Same Sex Couples | The Chromosome Chronicles

 

[Pop23]

There's no law against Martians marrying. Care to comment?

How about that the United States sent an Army into the Utah territories to insure marriage would be between between a single male and a single women in all states? Why'd they do that?

Why is the number two relevant in the law if it's not intended to be 1 male and 1 female. You do realize there are 2 genders right, and that the minimum number to procreate within a single unit is two.

Proceed, I'm going to bed. Can't wait to see more links about genetically invented humans, and the answers to the above in the morning.

Here you go, professor:

Politics, Ethics, and the Like…

The application of technology towards same-sex reproduction, in my eyes, is an advancement for both gay marriage and science. Scientifically, we are learning more about child development every year, and it will allow us to bring more healthy children into the world. For same-sex couples, the once impossible concept of a biological child is now a real possibility.

While I cannot see any ethical arguments against this type of procedure, I am open to a discussion about how far this may be pushing the envelope. In any case, I am still amazed every time I think about how far we have come with the ability to help people through science.
Sexual Reproduction for Same Sex Couples | The Chromosome Chronicles

Read what you post

POSSIBILITY does not equal reality

Now go find the insurance company that will cover the risk to the many entities that would be involved in such a risky endeavor.

Now, if you want to talk possibilities I'll bite. Imagine a world in which a researcher developed a method that made the male of the species irrelevant, and that this research was done to benefit lesbians. I would not want to be either the researcher or lesbians should that STUPID thing ever became a reality.

See, I'm a long term thinker

And you never addressed a single point I made. Still being dishonest, and boring

 

[GreenBean]

There's no law against Martians marrying. Care to comment?

How about that the United States sent an Army into the Utah territories to insure marriage would be between between a single male and a single women in all states? Why'd they do that?

Why is the number two relevant in the law if it's not intended to be 1 male and 1 female. You do realize there are 2 genders right, and that the minimum number to procreate within a single unit is two.

Proceed, I'm going to bed. Can't wait to see more links about genetically invented humans, and the answers to the above in the morning.

Sleep Tight Pops - I dieing to see what these faggots can come up with also.

 

[KNB]

"Real possibility" means "real possibility". Go to bed.

 

[Pop23]

"Real possibility" means "real possibility". Go to bed.

There is a real possibility that Martians will establish love nests in your ears. When I was a kid we were told people would quit driving cars and would use jet packs instead.

Waiting still cuz that would be soooooo fucking cool