Slashdot Mirror
A Mouse With Two Mothers
jabberjaw writes "Both the BBC and Nature are reporting that scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture have used two sets of chromosomes belonging to a female mouse to create what are essentially fatherless mice. The process by which this was accomplished (parthenogenesis) does not naturally occur in mammals. The mouse used lacked a gene known as H19 which in turn activated the Igf2 which allowed this process to occur."
Not unless us women are seriously shortsighted. As troublesome as men can be, they are still much cheaper for baby production than artificial methods. Even feminist science fiction realizes that you get a static, fragile society if you get rid of men. At most we'll have a number of lesbians who are interested in raising a child genetically related to both mothers. I just the research isn't stamped out because of narrow minded conservatatives who are scared of lesbian families.
A marriage is conducted by a government official
Someone vested with authority to perform marriages is not neccisarily a government official. Those conducting a marriage have been licensed to perform marriages.
The one handing out the licenses, however, is an official of the state. That btw, is why Gavin Newsome is not in as much hot water as his city officials who granted the licenses in San Fransisco of late.
Sometimes it also involves a mandatory health check-up and/or education courses.
Again, here I can only conclude that you are talking about the issuence of a license, not performing the marriage since that is a requirement for being granted a license only. After that a couple with a license is not married until the ceremony is performed by someone vested with the authority by the state. And (hopefully) they can choose to marry whom they will.
And the issuance of a license is nothing that religions have a part in now (except that their members vote like everyone else).
All I'm saying, is that the state should "subsidize" all loving couples, who raise children -- regardless of their sexuality and stop subsidizing childless loving couples -- also without regard for their sexuality. I'm not suggesting, homosexuality deserves any higher (nor lower) subsidy at all.
This is rather confusing then. Are you saying that couples that have children should be subsidized? How?
What about childless couples that want children? Should they be subsidized? How? And why?
Again, love and commitment is nothing the state has an interest in. Its a kind of justice is blind thing. Some areas we simply do not expect the state to find out, either becuase it is entirely too invasive, impossible to determine without a thought reader/crystal ball to read the future. And in this case its both.
All the state asks is "do you do this on your own accord(/by your own free will and choice)". Meaning do you really want to get married? Thats all it does to try to get inside the heads of the participants. The contract specifies other criteria, like both sexes need to be represented, health and other concerns based on the (assumed) capacity of the two entering into the contract to have children.
So what is it you wish to change?
It is thus foolish to reward the Marriage itself, merely because of its potential for child bearing and raising,
There is no foolishness in rewarding people for respecting their procreative powers (whether excersized or not) by commiting to marriage. But you do provide an interesting perspective. However, as a marriage is a display that two people are willing to work with each other in a condition where children are possible, for the sake of the children, I see the move to reward marriage as wisdom. It acts as a more against the illegitimacy, single-parenting, and other problems that invoke a social cost on the child, and in turn on the society that has to deal with that child. Indeed, to fall-back from that more to simple after children are born sows the wind and reaps the whirlwind.
I'm not suggesting, homosexuality deserves any higher (nor lower) subsidy at all.
This is unimporant to me. You suggest it should be subsidized, and that is the point I've spoken to in this thread. Granted the subsidy I'm speaking to is adoption and various third party techniques in having children, not raising them. In that way we may be (but I don't think we are) talking past each other.
But be warned, one of the most heinous acts I've ever been privy to was a mother who demanded her 14 year old daughter get pregnant so they could increase their welfare income! Any step you or others take to encouraging this type of behaviour by only giving money to child bearers will meet with stiff opposition from myself and others on grounds entirely different than we have presented so far.
you would not argue, that