Male-only reproduction

... even if science makes single-sex 2-person reproduction possible, the fundamental problems created by the courts/feminists remain the same. Gay couples who have adopted kids together in countries where this is allowed have run into the same kinds of problems that heterosexual couples who have kids get into if they split up and don't work out their differences to one another's satisfaction. Once the personal becomes public (and legal), life gets a whole lot harder.

Really, I don't care how children are produced. The bigger issue is, how can human societies tackle the problems that arise when these children become, for whatever reason, a source of state concern due to the decisions made by the adults who act as their guardian(s)? And also, what sort of effect would a child who knows how he or she came about have on them? "Children need both parents"-- one may argue specific cases but generally I feel this is true. Now when "both parents" are both men or both women, in family structure and in fact, what then?

Having seen the net results of modern 2-parent (or 1-parent), highly compartmentalized child-rearing, I think children really are in a better place raised by extended families/clans -- grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, in-laws, etc.

When I was younger, I used to think those tribal cultures featured in National Geographic specials were backward when they talked about how the children knew who their parents were but spent most of their time with other relatives and members of the tribe, and while who their parents were was good to know, it really wasn't considered that important a detail, since the children were considered part of the tribe first and someone's kid second. Now, I think that is not at all a bad idea.

Conclusion: I have none. Alas, I have no answers to these problems.

though it's still a good news

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism. Article here.

...are gay men. They face sexism for being men AND sexism for being gay.

I'm very pleased to hear that gay men and women may one day have the ability to produce eggs and sperm from their own biological material and reproduce just like everyone else. Or not like everyone else. Or whatever way suits them. Their bodies, their decision.

The only scourge worse than the sexism gay men face is the racism non-white men face. A bit of solidarity in our movement would benefit all. A rising tide floating all boats, etc. That's not to say that we should ignore homosexual and racial rights issues, quite the opposite. I'm just saying that unlike feminists most men's and father's activists don't believe in the zero-sum game. Giving gay people equal rights doesn't rob straight people of rights. Giving men equal rights doesn't rob women of anything (hence EQUAL).

It's a shame that the fesbian leminist crowd doesn't agree. If gay men ever have the ability to reproduce on their own the female supremacists will be after them with pitchforks and torches, mark my words.

Just my rambling $0.02 worth.

I think male/female two parent households are best. I am a strong believer that you should never go against the way nature intended things to be.

Courts get involved because people disagree and cannot work it out on their own. This says something about society and how little commitment people have for family. I think eventually you would see the same custody and support issues in male-male relationships. I would rather work on building stronger family values and a fair judicial system than support male only reproduction.

I would hate to be a child raised by two moms or two dads. Although someone pointed out to me once that these couples have a better chance of sticking together than heterosexual couples. I have not verified this, but it may be true because there are not enough bisexual couples co-parenting to make a fair comparison or it may have something to do with the effort it takes to adopt or artificial insemination (you don't have accidental pregnancies with bi-sexual couples) and they usually adopt kids after they have been together for many years and are therefore older. I believe in heterosexual couples the relationship success rate also increases the older you are when deciding to have children. So I conclude that couples should give more thought before they have children

As for as being raised around extended family (referring to the first comment), I think it is a great thing. My family owns 20 acres of beachfront property that has been in the family for three generations. It has one main cabin and several bunk houses. Growing up we spent most our summers there with my aunts, uncles and cousins. We all ate dinner together and then would sleep wherever we wanted. Consequently I am as close to my cousins as I am to my siblings. We all watch out for eachother. Growing up I could never get away with anything because a relative would always spot me.

I think my close extended family has been a great benefit to my boys since they do not have their dad around. My boys have always been exposed to two parent families and have all of their uncles and older male cousins to help guide them. Sometimes their dad thinks I am over protective as my kids have never been in daycare nor have they ever spent the night or had a sitter that was not family. They also do not attend school (they are homeschooled). People can think what they want, but no one will treat your kids or watch out for them as well as family will. I am far from overprotective as my kids do sports, hunt, fish, ride four wheelers, etc. They are exposed to plenty of risk.

Now back to the article about male only reproduction. No way would I support such a thing! Let's work on getting along or keep to ourselves without bringing children into the situation.

I suspect the article was submitted by a gay person trying to drum up support for gay issues.

> I suspect the article was submitted by a gay person trying to drum up support for gay issues.

Not necessarily. Artificial reproduction without women's participation is THE MOST POWERFUL AND ANNIHILATING BLOW THAT CAN BE DELIVERED TO FEMINISTS. Artificial womb in fact will kill feminism in no time. That's why feminists are scared to death about this thing.

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism. Article here.

Deleted Post

"..each MRA should support gay rights, because it will enable men to have their own families, without interacting with women..." Anonymous

Children need mothers and fathers equally. Depriving a child of one or the other puts them at a disadvantage. Also, interacting with the opposite sex is a vital component of human interpersonal communication. Bottom line, men and women need one another. For all the gender bullshit we deal with, we're still much better off with women then without. And I'm not just talking about sex. Eliminating or disrespecting the necessity of female reproduction seems like an extremely radical MRA ideology. As for homosexual men? I believe their doing a great injustice to a child's well being by ignoring the parental input of mothers. That also goes for lesbian couples depriving the child of a dad.

Supporting gay rights just for the sake of avoiding women really makes no sense. With all due respect, its a bit weird.

Women aren't the enemy, feminism is.

(I was unable to open the link so my comment is based on Anonymous's intro and excerpt.)

"Artificial reproduction without women's participation is THE THE MOST POWERFUL AND ANNIHILATING BLOW THAT CAN BE DELIVERED TO FEMINISTS" (nbdspcl)

Its also a big blow to children as well as women. The vast majority of women aren't feminists. Why should they suffer?

I do know one lesbian couple who were raising 3 kids together. The kids were 3 fantastic kids. Will they possibly have some social issues growing up? Well who knows. Obviously our biology dictates that the male-female coupling be the ideal arrangement, but I think it goes a bit far to suggest we not support something as a right just because it's not ideal, and the "it's in the best interest of the children" mentality has done far more to hurt men's rights then help them. My point being if we only allow statistically "ideal" parents to have children, our race will expire in a few decades.

As was alluded before, a lot of gay parents end up being "better" parents, with better obviously being narrowly defined, but still not a bad thing. It's for the same reason that straight couples who use artificial means are "better" by the same metric. Couples who are required to go through the expense of IVF, adoption, surrogacy, etc are going to be more financially stable and more likely to stay together. And with all the "unwanted" children especially in the american adoption system (especially boys who are far less likely to be adopted) I hestitate to suggest an entire group of people should be excluded. That may also be because as a man I know if I were to get into my late 30's or early 40's and not have found a woman I was willing to commit to, I might want to consider adopting a child. I'd like to think I'd adopt an older male child as they're statistically the least likely to be adopted, and I would think the most in need of help. I also know that somewhere out there is probably some diehard feminist who thinks single men shouldn't be "allowed" to adopt children. Raising a child should be seen as a gift, and anyone capable of and willing to give that gift should be commended.

Children raised by gays/lesbians is a fairly recent occurrence.

You bring up a good point. Lets see what happens when these children reach adulthood.

Man + woman = sexual intercoarse

Penetration + ejaculation = fertilization

Fertilization = pregnancy

Pregnancy = child birth

Child Birth = A Baby!

Baby = A Family edition

Family = Mom, Dad, and child

I don't make the rules, I simply follow them.

Where in your equation is the part about people born gay? Or to dead fathers, or born to mothers who die in childbirth? Or to families that have to rely on IVF to conceive their own child?

Do you see those people as less human, less deserving of rights or respect?

Deleted

How is two men reproducing a "blow" to women? What business is it of theirs anyhow? Men have little or no say in human reproduction as it is, what on Earth makes you think that the same legal systems will allow women to interfere with the private reproductive decisions of two men that don't involve any woman at any time?

Also, please explain how it is a blow to children that would not have been conceived at all if their fathers hadn't decided to have them. I fail to see how a child raised by two loving, biological parents is suffering a "blow".

Of coarse they're human and deserve respect. Unfortunately being born gay is a form of sexual deviance. Homosexuality will always be a small percentage of the human population. If anything its a form of population control. Homosexuals generally don't procreate.

Should an incest couple have the same rights? They're consenting adults.

Normalizing deviant behaviour is an oxymoron.

See, here's the problem: even though I'm heterosexual I'm not homophobic (and I can read the DSM) so I don't consider the behavior of gay people to be "deviant".

Incest is a taboo because it can result in the birth of seriously disabled and damaged children. Being gay doesn't harm children or anyone else.

If by "sexual deviance" you mean a paraphilia, you're correct in saying that the paraphilias are deviant sexual behaviors. Being homosexual is not considered a paraphilia, therefore it is not a deviant behavior.

Let me play devils advocate.

I agree, incest creates a disabled child. That's completely unacceptable. But if we're supporting homosexual rights, then incest couples should at least have the right to adopt children. They are consenting adults, right? Incest does not fall in the category of paraphilia, so its not deviant. With that said -- barring procreation -- shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? Many years ago homosexuality was considered 'taboo'.

Men have alot of say in human reproduction. They have the choice of ejaculation.

I wonder how the MANN members would feel about women procreating without men?

'Two loving biological parents'. Let me ask you this. How would society look if men procreated with one another and created a family dynamic without women?

Call me a traditionalist, but the family structure of mom and dad gives the child the best opportunity to develop into a functioning adult. Deviating from this biological fact would slowly rot our society.

I agree, its really no ones business. But opinions are always valid.

Anthony: You and I think alike. I could not have said it better myself (referring to post @ 20:22 and @ 20:45). The quote you referred to was exactly why I suspect the submitter is more interested in gay rights vs. men's rights. I welcome submissions by gay members. I just don't want them overshadowing their message by suggesting that we all support gay rights. (Read Anthony's post at 20:22 as he stated it better than I can).

Dan: Good post. I also know gay couples as well as single mothers that are doing a great job at raising their kids. Some very successful people are the result of single motherhood (LeBron James for one). That being said, I still don't condone single parenthood or same-sex parenthood. I just wonder if these adult children would have done even better with their lives or have more positive experiences to draw from if they had a parent of each gender to influence them.

And Dan, please keep thinking about adoption! There are many unwanted children in the world.

Everyone: As far as homosexuality goes, I think whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. I could care less, and they should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they do not take away from anyone else or cause a burden to society.

However, I do believe that homosexuality is a 'sickness' and not the way nature intended things.

A healthy species is one that can sustain it's species by reproducing. If humans and all animals were bi-sexual then all species would die out!

Example: Put gay couples and heterosexual couples on separate islands with everything needed to sustain life (fresh water, edible plants, wild game for food, etc). Check back in 50 years and see what island is still going. The gay island would die out. Does that seem healthy to you?

I have gay friends, I treat everyone with respect, and I'm all for equal rights; but I will not be fooled into supporting bi-sexuality as healthy.

Random Man: I never said gay men cannot be male activist. I welcome all members. My opinion about homosexuality and nature are obviously different from yours, but we all are entitled to our opinions (and I believe your statement about nature is your opinion NOT fact) .

It is a personal opinion, but I am consistent in my thinking as I do not support artificial insemination or other unnatural methods to conceive children for ANY couples (and I have a lot of family members with fertility problems which is why I am adopted myself). .

I see a lot of comments on this forum attacking women for choosing to have children without men. Why would men having children without women be any different?

...but unless you're gay it means very little, all we need is an artificial egg and an artificial womb. Bring them on, the sooner the better.

Example: Put gay couples and heterosexual couples on separate islands with everything needed to sustain life (fresh water, edible plants, wild game for food, etc). Check back in 50 years and see what island is still going. The gay island would die out. Does that seem healthy to you?

But see no one is suggesting doing that. I bet if you went to the hetero-island you'd find quite a few unwanted children that were neglected running around the island causing trouble. But the same way you can't then try to say that hetero-families are bad, you can't suggest the species will die out if we let gay people be gay. The reality is gay people, if denied the rights or ability to create or adopt children, aren't going to 'turn straight'. It's the same as people who argue gay marriage will corrupt traditional marriage. These are people who otherwise would simply never marry or have children, it doesn't affect the rest of society in the least, any children they bring into the world are above and beyond what would normally occur.

Whether homosexuality is a 'sickness' or not, it's certainly not transmittable. The suggestion that "well what if everyone were gay, the species would die out!" adds nothing to the arguement since most numbers put homosexuality at 3-5% of the population. Only a small subset of those being in relationships, a small subset of those in serious ones, a smaller subset of those with the financial means to even CONSIDER alternative methods of conceiving or adopting children. Society will not collapse if some financially stable homosexual couples bring some children into this world. I'm far more worried about the future due to the huge numbers of children born into financially unsure situations, whether it be a single parent who needs to dump the kid with friends or relatives to work 3 jobs because they didn't plan, or even hetero couples who struggle financially. I'm not suggesting either group are bad parents or incapable, but economics are a much better indicator of a child's future life than whether their 2 parents both have similar plumbing.

Deleted

manonthestreet

I don't want to say if this is a good or bad thing. What I think I can say is that it is just adding to our collective confusion. It is not in the end health for the human race if our thoughts and understanding of what we are and how we should live is driven by the latest scientific discovery. This turns us into as it where a rudderless ship or a building without foundations. It also makes the human race subject to the control of an elite set of scientists. In effect we become disenfranchised from our own humanity.

They can produce the eggs but probably won't be able to produce viable offspring:

"The research also suggests that it is impossible to create synthetic sperm from female stem cells, ruling out the prospect that lesbian couples could conceive without a male sperm donor.

...

Professor Nayernia had previously suggested that this process might also be capable of making “female sperm”, to allow lesbian couples to conceive without a man, but his research has ruled this out. It showed that although female stem cells could make immature sperm, only stem cells with a Y chromosome could make the mature version.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6661357.ece"

Same-sex reproduction is ridculous. Where does this put evolution? If nature wanted gays to reproduce then it would have given them that capability. Meddling in this way with a process thats evolved over millions of years is foolhardy. Nature knows what's best, I'd rather trust nature than scientists and gay adovcates.

It appears that two men will be able in the future to have their own offspring, without resorting to female eggs.

Good! The sooner it becomes a reality the better.

If men have lost the battle of the sexes then we have the moral obligation to not help the occupation force do its job of oppressing us.

Man + woman = sexual intercourse

The new rules say this is rape of the female in all cases.

I would think finding a woman and having sex would become difficult if we didn't interact with the opposite sex. Another thought. If I didn't interact with women, I would lose out on my Sunday lasagna courtesy of mom.

"I think male/female two parent households are best. I am a strong believer that you should never go against the way nature intended things to be."

Nature never "intended" anything. It was survival of the fittest and natural selection that determined who we are today. Naturally male-female sex was the only sex that resulted in offspring who, due to having their parents' DNA (the nature factor) and due to societal and family pressures (the nurture factor), were likely to follow the heterosexual path. Heterosexuality was thus reinforced through natural selection. Homosexuality may have been around from the beginning but it quickly became taboo because it did not result in children. Humanity's goal was to survive and perpetuate the species and homosexuality got in the way. Watch "Mark and Olly: Living with the Machigenga" and you'll see that this jungle tribe punishes homosexuality fiercely and looks for strong, capable men who will bear strong children. They are willing to kill their children if they appear to have a disability when born. They very much reflect stereotypical male and female roles because they have to to survive.

In the United States, however, we aren't constrained in this way. That's why we have supported women's rights which have given women the ability to transcend traditional roles and choose who they want to be. And that's why we need to support men's rights which will give men the ability to transcend traditional roles (that of the strong, sacrificial protector) and choose who they want to be.

Today in the United States we have largely moved past natural selection being a key factor. Offspring still tend to take on the characteristics of their parents but there is no real control on who has kids. In the past the strongest and smartest survived the harshness of nature's wrath and the attacks of enemy combatants. The weak, the mentally challenged were weeded out. In the past the most successful individuals would create dynasties of successful offspring while the poor remained poor and downtrodden. Today even the poorest, most unfit Americans have enough wealth to become obese and have as many kids as they desire. Natural selection is dead. Uncontrolled, this may not be a good thing for the human race, but that's an issue for another time.

Because natural selection no longer applies to survival (although it may apply somewhat to success/wealth in life) we are not constrained to follow the stereotypical paths of human beings of the past. Specifically, we don't have to seek heterosexual partners and make babies to enjoy life. We have an amazing freedom in this regard due to the current structure of society. And soon perhaps homosexuals will be able to have offspring too.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Some may take it for granted that homosexuality is wrong because their religion has always told them it is, or their parents have always told them it is, or society has always told them it is, but homosexuality as inherently immoral is an archaic thought. A thousand years ago when scriptures were written, it was very important to perpetuate the species and thus homosexuality was deemed a sin. When we lived in the jungle in small groups, it was very important to keep the community thriving and thus homosexuals were scorned.

Today we are more enlightened. Aren't we?

On incest: "With that said -- barring procreation -- shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? Many years ago homosexuality was considered 'taboo'."

You may be playing devil's advocate, Anthony, but objectively you are correct. I do not believe incest is inherently evil nor do I believe it should be a crime (between consenting adults). I have also read that the likelihood of disabilities in offspring of relatives is grossly exaggerated. It should probably be legal for even close relatives to have a relationship and adopt.

It always perplexes me when I see someone claiming to support men's rights show a negative view toward homosexuals. The women's rights movement gave women the power to choose their own path. The men's rights movement must do the same. Currently we do not have that choice - we are still expected to be strong, independent protectors and the primary breadwinner. And homosexuals are still looked down on by large portions of society. We must move past the stereotypes.

Also, do not make the assumption that heterosexuals will always be the majority or that just because that's how it always has been that's how it SHOULD be. In Joe Haldeman's Forever War, homosexuals vastly outnumbered heterosexuals because it made the most sense (a form of population control). Heterosexuals were viewed as the "odd bunch". Things change. Hopefully society will continue to evolve in such a way that humanity successfully colonizes other worlds without first destroying ourselves.

I in no way condone incest. Its disgusting. Like you said, I was playing devils advocate.

I believe gays should, for the most part, have equal rights -- including marriage. However, I believe adoption is off limits.

"In Joe Haldeman's Forever War, homosexuals vastly outnumbered heterosexual" (jayhammers)

I find Joe Haldeman's ideology completely absurd. Before I believe any of his propaganda, I'll need some legitimate data to support his theory.

'Colonizes other worlds'? How much acid does he take a day?