Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Mom Confessions Mom Confessions

Hope this doesn't get too heated.

Posted by   + Show Post

Hope I don't start too big of a bashfest here, but I think this is wonderful.

ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS OUT MINNEAPOLIS-AREA TV OUT  MAGS OUT

RENEE JONES SCHNEIDER/AP

Margaret Miles (l.) and Cathy ten Broeke are the first same-sex couple to be married in Minnesota. Their son, Louie (c.) joins the celebration.

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Dozens of gay couples are getting married at Minneapolis City Hall as Minnesota becomes the latest state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The law allowed weddings to begin at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, and 42 couples were expected to be married by Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and several Hennepin County judges in the hours before dawn.

RELATED: PENNSYLVANIA SUES TO STOP GAY MARRIAGE IN COUNTY

Grooms Paul Nolle (l.) and Reid Bordson (with daughter Anna, c.) get married after Minnesota becomes the 13th state to legalize same-sex marriage.

RICHARD TSONG-TAATARII/AP

Grooms Paul Nolle (l.) and Reid Bordson (with daughter Anna, c.) get married after Minnesota becomes the 13th state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Midnight weddings were also planned at several other county courthouses around Minnesota, as well as at the Mall of America's Chapel of Love.

Rhode Island joins Minnesota to make the 12th and 13th states where gay marriage is legal. Weddings weren't expected in Rhode Island until later Thursday morning.

by on Aug. 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM
Replies (161-161):
elitish
by on Aug. 2, 2013 at 12:28 AM
My contention never once changed. Reading does not seem to be your strong suit.


Quoting TranquilMind:

 And another lazy post that 1)  does not provide facts to support your contention, which has now changed to "mice have been created" and 2) does not refute my actually documented response.


Okie dokie.  Moving on.   I hate lazy.


 


Quoting elitish:



I quoted just fine. You seem to have issues in proper reading. My argument was that two females can make an offspring, it was performed in 2004, and the technology is being used to invesitgate humans. Apparently it is difficult for you to Google (which is lazy -- also wrong).


Mice created without fathers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3643847.stm


The technology being used for humans:


http://www.ask.com/question/can-two-women-have-a-baby


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-59196/How-women-make-babies-men.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1769356.stm


Quoting TranquilMind:


 At least I'm not lazy and wrong.  And I know how to properly quote other posters.


I have not found a source supporting what you are saying, that a "child" was born.  An embryo that cannot develop is not the "child" of two women.  So cough it up, where the "child of two women" claim is substantiated.

Support your claim or don't let the door hit you on the way out.


Quoting elitish:

And you suck at finding sources. Your source is from 2003. The first parthegenesis (mammalian) embryo was made in 2004 (as I clearly stated).


Quoting TranquilMind: Pretty lazy of you to refuse to provide a source for your own argument, but that's ok.  I did the work for you. 
It's not working for humans.   Imagine that.  A FATHER is necessary, according to the scientists .  It is true that human (as well as all mammalian) parthenogenic embryos presently would not complete gestation, unless they are given the opportunity to do so by combining them with normal trophoblast cells (the outer ring of cells in an early embryo, that ultimately form the placenta). This gestational incompetence (which currently is not capable of being reversed) seems to be due to the lack of paternal "imprinting" of genes, which directs normal placenta growth.
 
Quoting elitish:It's called parthenogenesis. Google it for yourself. I should have said two females, but I was tired and laying down for a nap. But now I'm coffeed and ready to go. The first mammals were successfully used in 2004 (NINE years ago), and it's predicted humans won't be too far off (which is why I said not their kid, but in general).
Quoting TranquilMind:Source?And if she planned to use a cab, she would have made that clear. But whatever. She was just fantasizing anyway, if you read further in the thread, she said.
Quoting elitish:False. Science recently found a way for two women to reproduce and create their own child - no man needed. So there goes your argument (not for this couple as the science is new, but in general). I'm hardly surprised you didn't know this. You're the same person who thought a group of people going out to drink with no single sober person was irresponsible because you'd never heard of cabs.
Quoting TranquilMind:Well, I would appreciate a more honest assessment. The kid isn't "their" son, because "they" cannot produce a son. The boy is the son of one of them (I'm thinking the dark-haired one on the left) The other can adopt if the father permits it. Maybe he is a test tube baby, but it is still only actually the child of one of them. I love how we pretend as a society that this is not true in order to preserve the politically correct fiction that a mom and a dad does not matter. That's what I think, since you asked.
Quoting cutebaby06:
Come on moms, I want to hear what ya''ll think?
 

 


 


 


 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN