"Instead the reason the sexual engagement does not work is because the necessary parts are not even present. It is the equivalent of screwing a nut onto a bolt, by using a hammer. They just don't fit."
Incorrect. There have been several articles on FR talking about how scientists are developing ways to turn female eggs into sperm and vice versa. So down the road it could be conceivable for two women to "create" a kid with their own DNA.
"There is a reason for homosexual activists to have kids; it is part of the great deception that no one is to question. By having children in the picture the attempt to complete the circle and to convince the world that such a family unit is normal is all important."
Oh please. This smacks of Hiterly's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" charges. I'd chalk up the desire as being more personal - wating a "normal" family for themselves rather than a worldwide effort of brainwashing.
Why would they want a "normal" family when they despise "normal families"?
Incorrect. It is a fact the sexual engagement does not work because the necessary parts are not even present. That is a fact. What you've done here is changed the subject and blurred the lines. You can talk about all the down the road possibilities that, through technology we might be able to do this or do that. What the writer said is true: The sexual engagement does not work because the necessary parts are not even present.
A question worth posing: why are scientists wasting likely public money turning eggs into sperm?
It's also worth noting that no male will ever be conceived by such a practice.
Good that you used the term "create" instead of "procreate" because without the proper anatomical parts, it ain't gonna happen "naturally". That was the point of this article.
Scientiest have also realized that they can cull ova from aborted female fetuses. Then the psychological implications of such a move, set in. Offspring of such a match, when seeking to find their biological mother, would have to contend with the fact that she had never been born.
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
This article takes the cake for being the most outrageous article of the week.
Exactly. This guy sees only what he wants to see - and that apparently is anything that makes him feel superior to those who are different from him.
No, the statement in the article is correct and you are incorrect. The article stated the truth as it stands today. You make claims about hypothetical, future, events as proof that you are correct. Much like Edwards claiming that stem sell research will allow people to get up out of their wheelchairs and walk. You don't know. Edwards was playing politics with unknown science and so are you.
"Incorrect. There have been several articles on FR talking about how scientists are developing ways to turn female eggs into sperm and vice versa. So down the road it could be conceivable for two women to "create" a kid with their own DNA."
Thus a genetically engineered child.
"Oh please. This smacks of Hiterly's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" charges."
You have it quite backwards.
Scientists might figure out a way to do this, but the fact remains, two of the same gender will never be able to procreate by having sex, no matter how properly their reproductive systems operate. The writer is correct.
wating a "normal" family for themselves rather than a worldwide effort of brainwashing.
The very fact that the relationship between the two 'mommies' or two 'daddies' destroys any hope they have of a 'normal' family.
"Incorrect. There have been several articles on FR talking about how scientists are developing ways to turn female eggs into sperm and vice versa. So down the road it could be conceivable for two women to "create" a kid with their own DNA."
False. Even if through some complex medical procedure the female egg could be "altered" in such a way - that would only demonstrate that two women are INCAPABLE of producing a child EXCEPT through extraordinary, unnatural medical intervention.
Such procedures would be "artificial" in the sense of "humanly contrived and lacking in natural quality."
Thus, St. Paul had the correct word for such same-sex sexual relations, calling them "against nature."
Gay activists can rage against God's creative design and demand to have their sexual behavior considered "normal," but in the end they cannot and will not succeed - even if they may appear to be winning up until the End.
But that would be TECHNOLOGICAL, not biological.