An Idea I had (could be stupid) related to Gay Couples and Children

This is half-baked, but I was thinking, would it be possible/desirable to develop technology that allowed gay couples to have biological children?

Biologically, the biggest hurdle to overcome would be the sex chromosomes. Female couples (XX/XX) could only produce girls and male couples (XY/XY) could produce boy (XY), girl (XX), or a defect (YY). In males, YY would obviously not be viable, so that is at least one ethical problem.

But, aside from the technicality of sex chromosomes, this does seem biologically plausible (and admittedly, interesting) to me. There is nothing "gender special" about the other 22 chromosomes, so if you could remove the nucleus from a donor egg and replace it with the nucleus from one of the fathers (or in the case of a female couple, replace the DNA of a donor sperm with the DNA from one of the mothers--which I imagine would be much harder), it seems in theory that you could get a normal, viable child with two biological parents from the same sex.

So, one aspect of this discussion is the biological plausibility of this idea.

The second aspect is that we assume it could be done and then ask should it? The first obvious question would have to be "is there a market for this?" Do gay couples want their own biological children? Beyond this simple question, it becomes a typical discussion on the ethics of genetic manipulation/cloning/etc.

(Oh, I should mention that these would obviously be in vitro births, although female couples could opt for a live birth if they wished).

In my opinion, nature's reason for same-sex couples is to allow two organisms in a species to love but to prevent over-sexual reproduction. Sort of like a population cap.
If a gay couple really wanted to have children, I'm sure it is possible, but adoption is a better course as it is less risky. Even different sex couples should adopt.

I'm not going to debate whether or not it can be done, because in all honesty I don't know, though I really do wish it could be.


I find it saddening that two gay/lesbian individuals who love each other very much are restricted in terms of having children. The only options available off the top of my head are adoption and in vitro fertilization. With the former option, traits from neither parent are passed to the child, because obviously that child will have been born from two totally different parents. With the latter option, half the child's DNA comes from only one parent while the other half comes from someone else entirely. Either way it's not entirely fair to couples who want to have their OWN child together but can't due to being of the same gender.

There really is no reason why gay/lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to do this. They can be just as great of parents as straight couples can, and can love their children with the same care and devotion. So if this can ever be done, it should.

(this is of course assuming it can be done risk-free)

What's wrong with adoption? It's a lot cheaper and would totally ease up the corruption and abuse stories in child services and foster homes.

Originally Posted by Nox

What's wrong with adoption? It's a lot cheaper and would totally ease up the corruption that faces child services and foster homes.

Nothing wrong with it, in fact I think it's a great thing to do.
But it doesn't change the fact that some people would want children of their own blood, which is a special bond adoption unfortunately can't offer.

we're all made by a man and a woman - we need both halves


if we were made by two men, we'd have super powers


and that's unfair

I would rather adopt then risk a child having birth defects. Not to mention it would cost a lot of money. Now if in the future there is no risk then perhaps people would stat trying it.

we're all made by a man and a woman - we need both halves


if we were made by two men, we'd have super powers


and that's unfair

ROLFMAO! So epic!

But in all serious, if it can be done in a practical and safe way, homosexual couples are entitled to the option. And on adoption, everyone should be encouraged to adopt. Maybe even some of the proceeds from such medical procedures could go towards promoting and advertising adoption.

If we could develop a way of letting people of the same sex reproduce together without any notable additional risk, I'm all for developping the technology and encouraging it to the same level as opposite sex reproduction.

Adoption should be encouraged for everyone (way more than it is now) but permitting everyone to have biological offsprings should in no way be stopped.

Originally Posted by The Silence

I'm not going to debate whether or not it can be done, because in all honesty I don't know, though I really do wish it could be.


I find it saddening that two gay/lesbian individuals who love each other very much are restricted in terms of having children. The only options available off the top of my head are adoption and in vitro fertilization. With the former option, traits from neither parent are passed to the child, because obviously that child will have been born from two totally different parents. With the latter option, half the child's DNA comes from only one parent while the other half comes from someone else entirely. Either way it's not entirely fair to couples who want to have their OWN child together but can't due to being of the same gender.

There really is no reason why gay/lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to do this. They can be just as great of parents as straight couples can, and can love their children with the same care and devotion. So if this can ever be done, it should.

(this is of course assuming it can be done risk-free)

By the same token, isn't it also saddening that we can't breathe underwater or fly? They aren't abilities the human body has by default as well.

Originally Posted by Jodd

By the same token, isn't it also saddening that we can't breathe underwater or fly? They aren't abilities the human body has by default as well.

I don't see the problem with that. If we had the technology to make humans fly by themselves or breathe underwater, wouldn't you say it would be a good idea? Its not like it is detrimental to anything.

Pshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


default mode sucks.



more splicing of chromosomes plz. thx.

Originally Posted by Jodd

By the same token, isn't it also saddening that we can't breathe underwater or fly?

Somewhat so, actually.

But then again, we have planes and submarines/scuba gear. Whereas we don't have a method of homosexual reproduction, from what I know.

If the sexes could both reproduce children without the need of the other sex, wouldn't it just be better to get rid of gender all together?

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

If the sexes could both reproduce children without the need of the other sex, wouldn't it just be better to get rid of gender all together?

I'm strongly against removing/combining genders. That's just...wrong.

^Why?

It's completely and utterly unnatural. I do not want to live in a world where we are forced to..."bond" with the same gender.

Just a thought, wouldn't that make two different homosexual species?

Originally Posted by Jyggalag

It's completely and utterly unnatural. I do not want to live in a world where we are forced to..."bond" with the same gender.

Just a thought, wouldn't that make two different homosexual species?

Firstly, Unnaturalness? What about using a pigs heart to save a man's life? That is unnatural, look at the benefits.

Second, men and women are not of a different species.

Thirdly, if there was only one gender, the concept of gender would not exist, thus anyone could love any one, and reproduce with anyone! There would not be such a thing as gay or straight.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

What about using a pigs heart to save a man's life?

if there was only one gender, the concept of gender would not exist, thus anyone could love any one, and reproduce with anyone! There would not be such a thing as gay or straight.

I support using a pigs heart or even a stem cells to save a man's life.

If there was only one gender, then the concept of male and female would not exist, but technically it's still a single gender. If this singled gendered person could successfully reproduce into more of the same without side effects, wouldn't that be considered a different species?

Originally Posted by Jyggalag

I support using a pigs heart or even a stem cells to save a man's life.

But not eliminating gender to end discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation? As well as grant every human the possibility to reproduce?

If there was only one gender, then the concept of male and female would not exist, but technically it's still a single gender. If this singled gendered person could successfully reproduce into more of the same without side effects, wouldn't that be considered a different species?

Sorry, we've been using the wrong word here, sex is what we're referring to, but I digress.

Technically yes, there would be only one sex. I guess you could say we'd be a different species, why is this a bad thing though? We could be posthuman or transhuman, in essence a better species.