CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Gay Marriage is no longer debate, but an immature and foolish stance.
And right now, it was already discovered that females can now create a baby of their own without any need for sperm. Though dangerous, it still means everything for lesbians
But ofcourse, this discovery cant go undisputed among the religious folks. Let the debate begin!
I do not care as long as both the father and the mother are involved in the child's life. Two dads and two moms? Better than 0 dads and zero moms. I may or may not agree with it, but I support the right to choose.
A man and a man or a woman and a woman, everyone has a right to happiness. Homosexuals are still human, and they have just as many rights as the straight man. I'd always rather see two good mothers together with a child than a man and a woman that treat their child like garbage.
These articles all said (except for the last one wich was an opinion paper) the procedure is dangerous and causes serious illness and birth defects in the infants. It would be dangerous and irresponsible to use this method to procreate it should be banned.
There's a difference though isn't there. The inventions you've mentioned were trialed on patients with full-consent of the risks. What you're talking about is to make the babies the the subject of the experiment. If it goes wrong you get disabled children. And for what? For the chance that the baby looks like both mummies? Lesbians already have sperm donation or adoption, leave it at that.
This is the age of computer. The results does not have to rely on human tests anymore. All they need is a lab rat, some testing, and a simulation program to know the percentage of risks for the operation.
For now, the risk is too high and not recommended. But come on, since when has mankind learned to be contented with what they have?
The progress of science can only be halted if it raised issues against morality (e.g Cloning and Human Experiments). I dont think that homosexual reproduction has something against the Constitution and the Bible itself.
At some point there will have to be human tests and when that points comes they'll have to be questions about if the aim they're persuing is worth the risks. However I concede that its not at that point yet as there seems to be more to do before starting on human trials.
The Church keeps a good sight on whatever action the scientific community does. They do this because they are paranoid for a reason too stupid to type.
The scientific world hates being criticized over morality issues so they will rather wait for desperate couples who will demand the experiment be done on them. That way, whatever the results are, is no longer their responsibility
It doesn't matter that its early what matters is that it goes against our biology. When you change one cell into another you mess up its genetic code. These kids are going to be born with crippling even deadly defects and diseases.
It doesn't you just go from being a guy to being a guy with no penis and visa versa. When a person "changes gender" there body dose not function the way someone who was born that genders body would for instance a man who becomes a women cannot get pregnant, lactate, give birth (duh), or "get wet". No matter how much esterigen they take. And I did not say you couldn't change cells I said that when you do you cause complications.
Not quite the same thing. It one your taking an organ from person a and putting it into person b the body changes but the function stays the same. What we are dealing with here is taking a cell and turning it into a totally different cell with a totally different function.
And no, the article never changed the function of the egg cell. What it did is to extract the DNA and pass it on to the receiving donor. Its an assisted reproduction, not mutation
Stem cells are meant to do that. And no the article said scientists have found a way to create artificial sperm ushering a donors DNA. It even said how they turned a bone marrow cell into a sperm cell or perhaps that was one of the other articles. But one of them said that.
Stem Cells are harvested from the bone marrow to be mutated into a cell that can be used to fight certain illness and disorders. In short, it is a process that destroys and reinvents what God has made.
Assisted reproduction is just...well, assisted.
They are not asking for Donors, they are asking the couples to double think whatever their decision is. For the process is too risky.
But if technology will grow for the better, it wont be long till it will be a safe process
Again stem cells are meant to do that but they didn't say stem cells. Remember stem cells only come into effect when another cell dies or there is an injury then the body uses them to repair if you transfer stem cells form one person to another that's fine because remarkably stem cells don't carry the DNA of the original body they carry raw DNA so they can turn into any cell that may be needed. The problems this presents are
1. You cannot force mutate a stem cell.
2. They can't use stem cells as they don't carry the original persons DNA code that's why they work so well in transfusions all they do is harvest them put them in the new body and let them go to work. Simply put stem cells are raw uncoded DNA.
Wait, are we still on topic or we are going to debate on Stem Cells?
i dont want to be directed into an off topic, but whatever.
1. Sorry, allow me change it into "Its a DNA from a different person which you are taking to yourself" And that my friend is called self mutation. Which is, a changing what God has given you.
2. Actually, Stem cells carry their own genetic DNA. But it is able to change its genetic structure so it may be accepted by the foreign body. Either way, why are you telling me this facts when it is not in our debate?
I was simply trying to explain how stem cells changeling into other cells is not the same thing as this procedure. And it is not changeling what god gave you because god gave you the stem cells. But your right we should get back on topic.
Here's a reason BECAUSE GOD SAID SO. We need to stop. science is going places it should never go. Isn't it enough that people through away the children The Lord gives them by getting abortions. Now we must further mock the Father by attempting to create life without his consent?
My biggest problem with this is not a question of morals it's the fact that this is risky, and it will lead to crippling birth defects and mental issues that will add further weaknesses to humanity's collective gene pool.
When did this turn into a constitutional debate? I realize this country has a separation of church and state. What's your point I think it's immoral and that's why. I think it should be banned because its dangerous but that's based on biology not religion.
If he didn't consent why would the scientists working on it still be here? You should just stick to gun and gay pony debates you are much better at those.
Acting through people. He went to people and said help me they said okay he told them what to do and they did it. I said he did not interfere directly in mortal affairs I never said anything about indirectly.
That is not a valid reason. It gives no hint as to why you should or should not do anything. It is a piteous appeal to authority and does not answer the question.
We need to stop. science is going places it should never go.
There is no place "science shouldn't go" our standards of morality change from one century to the next, science has no need of morality it is in the business of collecting evidence and forming hypothesis that help shape the way we perceive the world.
Now we must further mock the Father by attempting to create life without his consent?
God, by his allowance of this to happen is consensual. if not we never would have discovered it. JESUS you Christians need to make up your minds, either God is omniscient or not orn omnipotent or not, if he didn't want it to happen it wouldn't have
God made the human reproductive system in a very specific way male genes mix with female genes and produce an offspring. Anything which deviates from this model and any thing created as a result of it is an unnatural, un holy, and un human abomination. Plain and simple.
God made the human reproductive system in a very specific way male genes mix with female genes and produce an offspring.
Genes have no sexual connotation, some are present in only one sex like the entire Y chromosome, however what i think you mean is that half the genes are provided by a single parent and the other half by the remaining parent. God had no hand in it's "creation" because there is no proof in support of this, Evolution by contrast has Empirical evidence in its favor.
Anything which deviates from this model and any thing created as a result of it is an unnatural, un holy, and un human abomination. Plain and simple.
Says you, animals partake in homosexual activities all the time, just Google it and i'm sure you can find many articles on the topic, but here's some just in case.
The genes of the male mix with the genes of the female that's how reproduction works. And of course genes have sexual concentrations its the genes that determine the gender. God did create this system because god created everything.
And I was referring specifically to the proses explained in this article changeling one cell into another. It's un natural and won't work because cells don't work that way.
But besides that the Y chromosome is part of the genes that are exchanged you dolt.
No the Y chromosome houses the genes, you DOLT. Genes are the sections of DNA which is organised into chromatids, then doubled into chromosomes.
Look around you the proof is literally all around you.
Proof of evolution via natural selection, proof of abiogenesis, big bang, nothing on God being an influence at all. Your holy books aren't even credible often blatantly contradicting our historical understanding of time periods. As for any claims of possible divine intrusion the answer can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmxAGhC-gLU
But they can't change into other cells like the scientists in the article are trying to make happen.
ALthough I do not care about homosexuals I doubt they can have children. That bbc source is ten years old. If it had progressed anymore in scientific breakthroughs we would have heard more about it.
So personally I feel that the technology will be perfected in about 100 years because first we would have a couple hundred failures and then a breakthrough. But by that time we would be so advanced I can mix the DNA of any animal.
With the immaturity of mankind and a nuclear apocalypse just waiting to snap, 100 years is not even enough to fix mankind's foolishness. Much less, a perfect technology.
P.S
Mixing DNA of different animals is called Chimera) and Hybrid). Its already possible but not in the way you think. Not yet that is
You contain above normal intelligence in this website and you are correct in stating that a nuclear apocalypse can happen due to the fact it would only take 15 minutes in launching 15000 nuclear warheads.
It is not normal, immoral,and the child will grow up to be a very confused person.Other children will make fun of them at school and there is nothing you can do, since that is the way children behave.
I did read them I read all of them. And the 2 news articles said it was risky and could cause fatal birth defects. The third one was mostly an opinion paper so I didn't care.
Cars, schools, computers, clothes etc. are unnatural should those not be allowed as well? If so what are you still doing on the internet? That's unnatural too!
Humans can only create life if god says okay. Failures to get pregnant or miscarriages are god saying no. You missed my point completely on the natural part I was saying people aren't conceived like this and weren't meant to be so it will create problems for the offspring. And yes he did design us to have free will but again you miss my point we are not biologically designed for this sort of procedure you cannot Chang one type of cell into another and expect there to be no problems. Stem cells being the only exception.
Humans can only create life if god says okay. Failures to get pregnant or miscarriages are god saying no.
So successes in artificial sperm and cloning are god saying yes then?
You missed my point completely on the natural part I was saying people aren't conceived like this and weren't meant to be so it will create problems for the offspring.
So it will be completely natural if scientists perfect it so there are no negative effects?
Humans have never been cloned. Animals have but animals don't have souls. The reason god needs to approve of the birth is because he must give the child a soul. And again you either missed my point completely of you ignored it. My point wasn't its unnatural because it will cause problems my point was its unnatural therefor it will cause problems. This proses won't be perfected its just not medically possible to mutate a cell into another cell unless its a stem "cell" which is basically just raw DNA.
Have they ever turned it into a perfectly healthy sperm and impregnated someone with that sperm? No. Besides even if we could that doesn't make it a good idea the world is over populated as it is. I've always thought perhaps God makes some people homosexual because he knows that people are born everyday and if every one of them goes on to reproduce the world will become over populated so he makes some of them homosexual so they won't reproduce and thus we have some form of population control. I also use this theory explain why god allows war and genocide.
ECCLESIASTES 3:19-20 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath, man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust and to dust all return. (NIV)
but then again this is probably one of it's many contradictions.
That is referring to the fact that humans are animals and should be kind to and care for animals and only kill animals when nesisary. But no animals don't have souls and the bible dose not say that they do.
But no animals don't have souls and the bible dose not say that they do.
Really? What about
1 Corinthians 15:42-44 ESV
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1 Corinthians 15:35-40 ESV
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
You really should read your own holy book before making claims like that.
The quotes you used to support you arguments prove mine. The last sentence of the second quote explains that god makes all creatures differently ie he only gives humans souls. It's my book don't try to tell me what it says idiot.
I think the photo shown in this one is a reason why lesbians shouldn't reproduce. Can you imagine what the world would look like if every woman who has to resort to homosexuality, because they're too ugly to find a guy, started to have off spring!
haha like women don't do that too. Women tend to worry a lot more about the way someone looks than men do.
But we do agree at least that some women are driven to being a lesbian because of their distaste for men rather than an actual attraction for women. Interesting.
Hahahahahaha what do you think a dildo is if not the ultimate objectification of men by women? Wayyy more common than fleshlights, btw.
Besides that, how many girls do you know who don't give another girl a once over and judge her for her hair, clothes, makeup, etc immediately upon meeting them?
"what do you think a dildo is if not the ultimate objectification of men by women?"
-uhh....what? A dildo is just a sexual toy for women or (men with a fetish) It has nothing to do with anything.
"Besides that, how many girls do you know who don't give another girl a once over and judge her for her hair, clothes, makeup, etc immediately upon meeting them?"
- Thats called "Social Expectations", my friend. Every society has its demands for its people.
Girls are expected to act according to the demands of fashion and be extremely social.
Men of all races are supposed to act independent, strong, simple, and never a cry baby.(Some rules can vary based on culture, though)
Not coping up to this demands can result in "Social Disapproval". However, that is far from the definition of objectification
iNo they aren't. That is very sexist. Your gender and sex are different. Your sex is your penis or your vegina. Your gender is your state of mind, and it can be male or female.
Homosexuals will never beable to procreate. They need men, whether they like it or not. They shouldn't reproduce because this causes problems for the child and the child will blame them in the long run. A child should beable to gain insight from both sexes and this is what makes a strong family, together with it being highly moral.
1. The parents knows their similarities and differences better. So less fight in the family
2. They can easily agree with how they wanted to raise their child. Which provides better nurturing and discipline
3. The share of household chores and responsibilities are more equitably.Children seem to adjust better when there is a more equal division of labor in the home and the parental relationship with the children had a higher rating.
.
But of course, due to the immaturity of mankind. The kid can suffer insults from peers due to the gender of his parents. But thats a problem that cannot be blamed on them but to the society
They do grow with differences, they see it all around them and they should not be subject to this, as children. The worldwide statistics show that heterosexuals grow better children. 1.The sex of marriage partners does not determine the strength or fights of the marriage. Homosexuals dispute quite frequently. Just because they share the same sex doesn't mean they know each other better. 2.There is no conclusive evidence to say that homosexuals agree better than heterosexuals. They are a minority and thus their marriage trends are lower than heterosexuals. Nurturing and discipline does not depend on the agreement of parents but rather their values. 3. Children don't need to adjust in their own homes. This better parental relationship with children has nothing to do with them being homosexual, but it has to do with the character of the parents and the love they exume. To claim that heterosexual parents do not give off the same bond of love and values is illogical. The greatest people were born from heterosexual parents.
1. "The sex of marriage partners does not determine the strength or fights of the marriage...........Just because they share the same sex doesn't mean they know each other better"
2."There is no conclusive evidence to say that homosexuals agree better than heterosexuals.........Nurturing and discipline does not depend on the agreement of parents but rather their values"
-No evidence or you are just being closed minded?
-Yup, it all depends on theparents value for their child. And what makes you think that Homosexuals has no care for their offspring?
3."Children don't need to adjust in their own homes......The greatest people were born from heterosexual parents"
- You do realize that children turns into rebels because they cannot adjust towards the problems in their own home, right? Also, you already debated your own argument right? You said:
1.Ummm...wheres the happy meter? I would think gay couples have greater challenges.2.The offspring isn't totally theirs. They just try harder cause they feel guilty the child doesn't have a father, per say.3.Children dont always turn into rebels, they have a greater chance of doing that with their homosexual parents because of the pressure they face.Stating a fact isn't denouncing my argument.
1. Its not a happy meter.Its a research that states "Gay Relationships are Happier and Healthier Than Straight Ones".
Why not read it? Its very educational
2. Then I suppose that you are admitting that Homosexuals makes a better parent than Hetero's
3. Nope, Among the causes of deliquents are the result of lack of love from home. "You said that Homosexuals try harder" in their parenting so, indeed,Homos make a better parent than normal folks.
Stating a fact does not denounce an argument, it dissolves the incorrectness and upholds wisdom.
So what if a child grows up with two moms or two dads. When they are little they won't know any difference. To a child anyone that will be able to look after them and show them proper care it won't matter. A child isn't born with the knowledge of what older kids know now. To some people like you it is wrong. So would it be wrong if a girl was to get raped by her boyfriend then break up with him and keep the baby. Would you think it is wrong for her to date a girl after that? No you wouldn't therefore what is the difference in two females have a child together? They may not be able to procreate but either way they can still have kids. Even if it is through adoption, sperm doner, or whatever. It shouldn't matter. I wish anyone happiness if they can procreate. It's not your place anyways to tell them that they can't even if they physically/sexually can't.
To a happy lesbian couple, you opinion is just shit from another asshole.
I am not disputing your first sentence. I would think it incorrect for a girl, after experiencing such brutality, to date a girl. It shows that she is still traumatised and her experience has created a bias. She is trying to avoid anything related to the crime. This shows more therapy is needed for her to overcome and take care of her baby. Not all men are that way. The circumstances in which one procreates is imperical in the development of the child. Freedom of speech, and this entire debate forum gives me the right to emphasize my points, and notice the lack of vulgarity in my words. I wish the children happiness and enrichment.
The way that I tell my opinion is the way that I feel.
You have the right to say what you want, and I have the right to say what I want.
How would it be incorrect? if she experiences something like that then do you not think that she would want to get away from the fact that it was in fact rape and that it was in fact a male that did it to her? No, not all males are like that, I understand. For the ones that are there's nothing you can do about it really. Most females won't admit to it either so when someone asks that particular female, "when did you get pregnant?" and she is with her girlfriend, honestly how do you think she is going to react to that question? Some people might say that she will just come out and say "You know hey I got raped by my ex", but most of the time it isn't going to be like that. My ex and I went through that. We were able to take care of the baby and no one looked at us different. So she was trying to avoid it? Wouldn't you? Most people would, and I respected her for that because I could understand where she was coming from. It's hard to see it the way that she did, when I wasn't the one that went through it. You didn't go through it, I didn't go through it only she went through it. She didn't need therapy, nor anything of the sort.
After she had that child, she got raped again and was going to have twins and me and her were still together. She got raped by the same guy. Did it bother me? Yes it did, the guy is no longer aloud to be around her. I understand that if you could procreate that the child itself may not turn out to be "normal". The child may end up having birth defects, but even if it is a male and female having a child the chances are just the same. When my ex had the twins they both died, no one expected it and she almost died as well. They were to much for her to handle. So even if a female gets raped, the chance of her losing her kids would be about the same as a child having birth defects from procreating.
I am not sure if you are getting my point?
This topic isn't the easiest to explain or understand.
I myself am seeing that I am getting confused. Haha.
I am sorry to hear that you have faced such difficulties, especially with someone you care about. However, she is your "ex," and that shows that proves my points. Every rape victim needs therapy. She could have done a better job avoiding it, as it happened again. Even this shows her need for assistance. I do not imply an abnormality in a physical sense alone. I say that for the well-being of the child, heterosexuals would truely enrich the child. The qualities of males and females, as you know are different and the child should be exposed to parenting from both of them. They should not be denied of this. If you look at the overall chances between homosexual and heterosexual birth defects, they lean towards homosexuals. After experiencing what you've been through, you can see how the situation of your ex can affect the children negatively. Once again, I sympathise.
"The qualities of males and females, as you know are different and the child should be exposed to parenting from both of them. They should not be denied of this."
Whether talking about same-sex or different-sex parents there is always a multitudes of different qualities that they can get from either parent. Two different genders is an obvious way that you can provide a child with distinct qualities. Equally though one could argue that having parents from different countries provides children with exposure to a larger multitude of qualities, or from different socio-economic backgrounds. But in the end it gets a little silly and we have say that both parents, no matter how we label them, will offer distinct qualities.
It is scientifically proven that men and women are different, both emotionally and physically.Having different backgrounds has to do with everyone but gender does not.Important qualities offered by parents of different genders stimulates the child.
I dont follow you. Why do you feel that having two parents of a different gender is more important that two parents of a different background? People of different backgrounds (lets say different continents, for the sake of argument) can offer different things.
Its proven that chinese people and american people are different both emotionally and physically. Important qualities (whatever they might be, we haven't be able to say) offered by parents of different nations stimulates to child.
