Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Joe DeFuria]

no defect, just part of nature; some peoples genes simply will not mix. i did a quick google seach for those words and came up with this, athough i am sure there is plenty of info on the subject if you want to dig for it.

still currious as to what Joe considers so immoral about such relationships though.

In fact, early studies do suggest that reproduction is hampered if partners are genetically compatible. That is, if you would be a good organ donor for your partner, the likelihood of successful reproduction drops.

So the liklihood drops, but to what extent? What does "successful reproduction mean?" (No conception at all? Conception but no development? Birth defects?)

I dug briefly and came up empty. I welcome any additional finds you might have.

 

[kyleb]

to the extent that "there are some couples who cannot conceive a baby together but who could conceive a baby with other partners." just like it says in the initial question.

as per your request, i sure as hell am not going to dig up any more information for you if you don't even have the intellect to prosses it. :?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

to the extent that "there are some couples who cannot conceive a baby together but who could conceive a baby with other partners." just like it says in the initial question.

Sigh.

It might be worthwhile investigating that if there was any evidence such a couple existed. Get it?

The article you quoted had no evidence of the lack of conception. (Egg fertilizing sperm).

as per your request, i sure as hell am not going to dig up any more information for you if you don't even have the intellect to prosses it. :?

I sure as hell am not going to waste my time investigating non existent phenomenon...

For a starter, try and by more civil, kyleb.

 

[Silent_One]

kyleb wrote:

to the extent that "there are some couples who cannot conceive a baby together but who could conceive a baby with other partners." just like it says in the initial question.

Ahh...but the initial question did not say that . Again, to be clear - antlers said "What about people who might have children with others, but are genetically incompatible with their partners?" (bolding mine). The article you found is interesting but I noticed it says that the couple in question are too genetically compatible. I'm not sure if thats what antlers means since he has not clarified his statement.

 

[zidane1strife]

(As per my definition of "sexual relationship" above). If there is desire to have sex between the two same sex partners, that relationship, in terms of morality, it's not different in my eyes than if they actually have sex.

And it's the "desire" aspect (not the sex itself) that I essentially object to.

I think seeking to please another, and bring pleasure to them, Is not wrong. I really see no prob. with it, what is it that makes love and expressing that love to each other wrong/immoral?

As I said before to another(bear with me.), What if your wife was a man that underwent 'really advanced' surgery to become a woman? Would you stop loving her? Would you consider your relationship immoral?

Genetic manipulation is too far in the future.

The field of genetics is doubling its knowledge every 5 years, technological advancement is an autocatalytic process... Decades are what stand before us...

4) Does this mean that a couple with a knowingly high risk of downs syndrome should be sterilized for the relationship to be morally acceptable?

People have such different views of what is moral and what is not... Here is the question in a clearer context.

Is it immoral for me to inject a pregnant woman with toxic substances, so that the child is born full of who knows how many defects? If knowingly through inaction/lack of action you allow wrong/problems to come to someone it is virtually the same as if YOU yourself had caused those problems.

 

[kyleb]

kyleb wrote:

to the extent that "there are some couples who cannot conceive a baby together but who could conceive a baby with other partners." just like it says in the initial question.

Ahh...but the initial question did not say that . Again, to be clear - antlers said "What about people who might have children with others, but are genetically incompatible with their partners?" (bolding mine). The article you found is interesting but I noticed it says that the couple in question are too genetically compatible. I'm not sure if thats what antlers means since he has not clarified his statement.

i am reffering to the initial question in the link i presented and which Joe posted a quote from the responce above. i copy and pasted the part in quotes, so yes it very much did say excatly that.

 

[kyleb]

to the extent that "there are some couples who cannot conceive a baby together but who could conceive a baby with other partners." just like it says in the initial question.

Sigh.

It might be worthwhile investigating that if there was any evidence such a couple existed. Get it?

The article you quoted had no evidence of the lack of conception. (Egg fertilizing sperm).

a person asks about "couples who cannot conceive a baby together but who could conceive a baby with other partners." a M.D., director of a reproductive endocrinology/infertility program none the less, responds with information on studies and theories as to why such things do happen; yet you still claim there is no evidence? wtf, do you need one of the couples in question to beat the ever-living shit out of you before it sinks in?

I sure as hell am not going to waste my time investigating non existent phenomenon...

it is i not just a river in Africa you know.

For a starter, try and by more civil, kyleb.

i fond your complete inability to comprehend the information presented to be uncivil, so at this point i see no reason not to express hostility toward you.

 

[RussSchultz]

i fond your complete inability to comprehend the information presented to be uncivil, so at this point i see no reason not to express hostility toward you.

Ah yes, nothing cures ignorance better than insulting it.

But, to drag up this old topic and hope for another 12 pages...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/929327.asp

Once again, I am uncomfortable with the reliance on the 'constitutional right to privacy' to enact political agenda.

 

[Sabastian]

i fond your complete inability to comprehend the information presented to be uncivil, so at this point i see no reason not to express hostility toward you.

Ah yes, nothing cures ignorance better than insulting it.

But, to drag up this old topic and hope for another 12 pages...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/929327.asp

Once again, I am uncomfortable with the reliance on the 'constitutional right to privacy' to enact political agenda.

Now look what you've done Russ...."w00t!"

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6637

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i fond your complete inability to comprehend the information presented to be uncivil, so at this point i see no reason not to express hostility toward you.

And I find it fruitless to have any type of meaningful discussion with someone with your infantile attitude. So I won't even try so long as you have it.

 

[Legion]

It's downright offensive that you, who will never know the true joy of fatherhood,

Personally i wouldn't take offense to this. My lover and I have chosen not to have children as we'd much rather be dedicated to each other - besides i do not like children.