Danny, everyone admires your strength and courage-
trooping on with the assholery when we know inside your widdy biddy heart is just breaking....
It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

The only reason this would be "provocative" is because it involves pretty seriously fiddling with the biology of future babies. Eventually techniques could be perfected, but there's no telling how many deformed and/or mentally challenged children would result at first. Ethically, it's a non-starter if there are other viable ways of continuing the species (sex? adoption? anyone?).

Two males could produce male and female offspring since both can contribute an X cromosome (making an XX female) or one X and one Y (male). However at the present state of technology they still need a female to carry the baby to term, though this can reasonably be expected to cease to be a problem eventually. Two females can only produce girls.

Still, considering we have something of an outrgeous surplus of people in the world, finding new and creative ways of making new people at tremendous cost seems pretty insane.
*Insert 'Of Mice And Men' joke*
But conservative Christians dont' believe in science. After all, scientists believe in evolution. Everybody knows that the earth is only 5,000 years old, and that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark.
#2 The retarded ones would be aborted, they do it every time with test tube babies.
So I guess that means you'll have to stop calling *us* breeders...
@2 - right on. now if only science could figure out a way to breed the stupid out of us, we'd be all set.
@2 - i'm no reproductive geneticist, but i bet they can get a lot of the mess-ups out of the way with mice and other animals first. it all works pretty much the same for mammals.

and i think the idea of genetic children of same-sex couples is fantastic. i hope scientists can perfect this and make it happen.
so only gay people have gay kids (your comment on the occasional need to breed)?! I take it that was an attempt at humor Dan - or are you supposing that two gay guys would definitively/most likely produce a gay child (and that that would even be a good idea)?
I not convinced that having humans go extinct is such a bad thing. Pretty much every other species on Earth would be better off...
I'm just glad this happened now and not 15 years ago.

*shudder* the mixing of the Savage & Miller gene pools *shudder*
@9 I think that Dan is just monumentally pissed about the DADT debacle (who can blame him) and wants to beat around the fundamentalists who try to ensure his is a second class citizenship and his son isn't afforded the same protections as their sons. Again, who can blame him?

There is no indication that homosexuality is genetic. Most of the biological studies that have found good correlations with homosexuality are based on chemical balances. Maternal interactions with the male fetus is a classic example. It's pretty unlikely that something as complex as homosexuality is going to have a simple, as opposed to multi-faceted, origin. I would be quite frankly shocked if the offspring of gays consistently turned out to be gay, though I suppose if you were in some insane looooong term experiment you could probably up the probability by consistently cross-breeding gays and lesbians, since it's likely genetics influences in some way, just not a simple to define one.
I've reproduced twice, and produced 2 straight sons. So much for genetics @12.

not surprising.
since your sexual behavior is a choice.
@14 Sure, behaviour may be a choice, people can choose what to do, but orientation is not. Dumbfuck.
@14: My cousin and her partner have two sons with no guys directly involved in their procreation. Yes, it's possible to have kids without having secks now.
@9 - Dan's making fun of the notion that gay marriage or gay soldiers will lead to more and more people being gay, or everyone becoming gay.

He's suggesting the only way you could think more people would become gay because of gay marriage is if you thought everyone was secretly gay and were just suppressing it because of the social stigma.

More likely is that the people who say those sorts of things are themselves in the closet - otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Someone who's straight isn't going to choose to be gay just because it isn't stigmatized anymore.
if the human race went extinct, who would give a shit?
What exactly is "exinct," Dan?
@19: No civilized species would be left on the planet to give a shit. It's like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around to hear it.
Oh, Dan, c'mon. You know conservative Christians don't believe in science.
If you read the actual article, it requires the generation of a female chimera carrying oocytes derived from the male stem cells. This chimeric female must then breed with a male to produce the "male x male" offspring. So it requires the generation of a sexually mature female before the desired offspring can be produced.

Not sure I see this technology being applied to human reproduction anytime soon. And I'm not sure how this will "advanc(e) human assisted reproductive technology".

Regardless, I met Dr. Behringer when I was a grad student at UW and this experiment is pretty cool from a biological and technical standpoint.
Hooray for Science™!

@7: Wry humor aside, eugenics (and much genetic engineering, even the basic stuff like selective breeding) is (can be) a phenomenally bad idea, because it decreases genetic diversity, and the survival of a species depends on both it's degree of adaptation to its environment and its ability to contend with changes in the environment (although selective breeding is much less dangerous than direct genetic modification, as one can observe any unintended consequences of selecting for a particular trait in successive generations, one is engaging in phenotype selection, which is less likely to eliminate genotype diversity outright, and one is breeding the organisms in extant environments, which means one cannot inadvertently cause the maladaptation of the organism to the extant environment, as with many GMO crops that require massive amounts of fertilizers to grow at all). Stupid may turn out to be a great survival advantage under certain circumstances. :-)

@18: Exactly. The people who think being gay is a "choice" think that it's a "choice" because they really really want to be having all sorts of gay sex but are forcing themselves to not do so. If you think homosexuality is a choice, you also, by extension, think heterosexuality is a choice. Ironically, this is closer to postmodern notion of culturally-constituted performative sexuality than is the naturalized view "I AM gay[/straight/bi/pansexual/etc.], since birth", which assumes a culturally- and historically-universalized and naturalized understanding of sexuality and identity that is not particularly reflective of reality. (It also, rather arbitrarily, positions object-choice gender as THE defining characteristic of sexuality, as opposed to, say, a preference for specific acts, or contexts, or fantasies, etc.) Additionally, it assumes that anything not biological is a "choice" (and anything biological isn't, and everything is either 100% biological or not).

@22: They LOVE Science™ on those rare occasions where it backs one of their unexamined preconceived notions.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.