I really hope you are not a pastor or priest.
The source of molecules which form a spermatozoon have no bearing on the humanity of a person produced by that spermatozoon.
If manure is used to fertilize a garden, and a man eats vegetables from the garden, then some of the molecules in that man's body will once have been dung. This does not mean that a spermatozoon built with molecules which were once part of the dung will produce a baby which is not human.
In the same way, the source of the molecules in an artificial spermatozoon is irrelevant. If the sperm carries human DNA, and fertilizes an egg carrying human DNA, then the embryo so produced will be human--designed to mature into a living, breathing, thinking human being. What else could he or she be?
Your line of reasoning is both flawed and frightening.
So there's no difference between male DNA and female DNA? There's no significence other than the fact a man has different genetalia than a woman?
Are you kidding me right now? Give me an example of a being created by combining the DNA of either two males or two females.