Sperm cells have been created from a female human embryo in a remarkable breakthrough that suggests it may be possible for lesbian couples to have their own biological children.

Lesbian couples could one day have children who share both their genes

British scientists who had already coaxed male bone marrow cells to develop into primitive sperm cells have now repeated the feat with female embryonic stem cells.

The University of Newcastle team that has achieved the feat is now applying for permission to turn the bone marrow of a woman into sperm which, if successful, would make the method more practical than with embryonic cells.

It raises the possibility of lesbian couples one day having children who share both their genes as sperm created from the bone marrow of one woman could be used to fertilise an egg from her partner.

Men and women differ because of what are called sex chromosomes. Both have an X chromosome. But only men possess a Y chromosome that carries several genes thought to be essential to make sperm, so there has been scepticism that female stem cells could ever be used to make sperm.

If all these experiments pan out, then the stage would also be set for a gay man to donate skin cells that could be used to make eggs, which could then be fertilised by his partner’s sperm and placed into the uterus of a surrogate mother.  (Source)

Thousands of gay couples will be following developments in this research.

I must admit I still support adoption over more procreation. There are far too many children in need of a decent home and loving parents and gay couples are in a position to cut those numbers dramatically. It would also serve as a much needed slap in the face to those on the religious right who denounce birth control and abortion yet make no effort to provide care for the thousands of children born every year to mothers who didn’t plan on them and don’t want them.

Principal’s outing of gay student roils Fla. town

PONCE DE LEON, Fla. – When a high school senior told her principal that students were taunting her for being a lesbian, he told her homosexuality is wrong, outed her to her parents and ordered her to stay away from children.

He suspended some of her friends who expressed their outrage by wearing gay pride T-shirts and buttons at Ponce de Leon High School, according to court records. And he asked dozens of students whether they were gay or associated with gay students.

The American Civil Liberties Union successfully sued the district on behalf of a girl who protested against Principal David Davis, and a federal judge reprimanded Davis for conducting a “witch hunt” against gays. Davis was demoted, and school employees must now go through sensitivity training.

And despite all that, many in this conservative Panhandle community still wonder what, exactly, Davis did wrong.

“We are a small, rural district in the Bible Belt with strong Christian beliefs and feel like homosexuality is wrong,” said Steve Griffin, Holmes County’s school superintendent, who keeps a Bible on his desk and framed Scriptures on his office walls.

Many in the community support Davis and feel outsiders are forcing their beliefs on them. Griffin, who kicked Davis out of the principal’s office but allowed him to continue teaching at the school, said high schoolers here aren’t exposed to the same things as kids in Atlanta or Chicago.  (Source)

So they think outsiders (educated members of a Constitutional republic) are forcing their beliefs on them (ignorant, delusional bigots).  Wow, tough shit.  If you want to believe like fundamental Christians or Muslims perhaps America isn’t the country for you.  See, here we have the rule of law (not rule by holy decree) and we encourage respect for all our citizens, not just the ones who happen to agree with you.

Incidents like this clearly illustrate what America will look like should we ever be careless enough to allow the U.S. to be perverted into a theocracy by the intolerant, hateful Jewish zombie worshipers.

Let me begin by saying that, as a veteran myself, I have the utmost respect for the sacrifices John McCain has made for his country.  However, being a war hero doesn’t automatically imply he’s capable of performing the duties of the president in supporting and defending the Constitution.  I shouldn’t have to justify my opinions on his qualifications for the presidency, but I know if I don’t all the comments will suggest I’m not giving him credit for his service to our country.

Reason #1

Reason #2

Nothing gets the highbrows blushing with illicit excitement faster than all the varied obscene uses of idiomatic speech. This Masterpiece Lecture on the history of the word “fuck” was presented in college linguistics classes. Harry Frankfurt’s clever treatise On Bullshit became a minor bestseller, which wouldn’t have happened if he’d written a pocket-sized critique on pure reason. All that stops Hector from feeling scandalized when Dorothy describes a boy as “cunt-struck” in the movie version of Alan Bennett’s The History Boys is her indication that it’s a compound adjective and Hector likes compound adjectives. Now psychologist Roy Baumeister continues down the path of sophisticated discussions of filthy words by asking, “[S]houldn’t the adverb form be ‘f**kingly?’ As in, ‘that was f**kingly ridiculous.’” Him first.

Let us turn now from form to content. What is the meaning of the adverb “f**king” or, by extension, “f**kingly?” Just how does something that is “f**king great” or “f**kingly ridiculous” differ from things that are great or ridiculous without reference to fornication? The dictionary on my laptop offers no definition, nor does its thesaurus have a synonym. Anecdotal impression suggests that it is often used as a synonym for “very.” Something that is f**king ridiculous is somehow more ridiculous than something that is merely ridiculous, correct?

(Gawker)

I was asked a few good questions recently and thought those questions with my replies might make an enlightening post for HQ. The questions have been posted without editing or correction.

Preamble: I wanted first off to say that I do respect your positions. I think you are one of the most open-minded people I’ve met (on the internet or other wise).

Thank you.

I want to ask you a few personal questions and if you do not want to answer I understand. These are just some things I cannot experience but want to understand.

Question: I gather from you posts that you are homosexual/gay (I’m not sure what word is politically correct I’ll use gay because to me it sounds cool). Ok enough tip toeing around. There are a few issues that I really want to understand: 1) choice vs. nature; 2) how important gay issues are to you; 3) how hurtful to you is it that certain words like “gay” are used as analogies to “bad”; and 4) does your perspective as a gay man allow you to be more open-minded.

I don’t concern myself too much with political correctness.

“Gay” is just fine.

I don’t believe there’s any choice involved in sexual orientation. In the nature vs. nurture debate, some presume nurture to involve a choice. But if it does, it’s a choice by someone else (i.e. parents), not the choice of the individual. Another thing that might qualify as a choice is whether or not to explore aspects of your personality which are present but unexpressed. In other words, I don’t believe anyone could choose to be gay, but they might choose to explore the gay feelings they have that they’ve been repressing.

That’s what happened to me when I was 22. I knew I was “gay curious” and had noticed gay feelings since I was very young. I just never had the nerve to explore them until I met a very kind and gentle gay man who was willing to answer my questions and let me realize a few of my fantasies. I should add that to be clinically correct, I should call myself bisexual. I’ve had relationships with both men and women. On a scale with heterosexuality as #1 and homosexuality as #10, I’m a #7.

Gay issues are important to me as a liberal humanist. Just like racial and gender issues, gay issues are important to me because they involve human repression and persecution.
“Gay” as a synonym for bad is of little importance. English is a dynamic language, it’s irrational to take offense at the reapplication of a word. Words are tools we use to express thoughts. Sometimes we have to overlook the words used and focus on the thoughts behind the words. That reveals the character of the speaker even more than their choice of words.
No doubt all the aspects of my person have added something to my open-mindedness. My gay attitudes keep me from being blasé about sexual matters. Being left-handed has made me aware of what a right-handed world I live in. It is hard for me to find a conventional belief to hold onto when so much of my being is unconventional.

1) This question has been bothering me since Bill Richardson’s presidency was destroyed because he said being gay is a choice. I was wonder what are you feelings on the issue. Right now I cannot quite understand the difference only because in some way I think the way I am is a choice and part of my nature. I’m not sure if I am not gay or bi because of social constructs or because it is my nature. Although, if it were truly a choice, I am not sure any one would be gay (because of the ridicule that may ensue). However, I would much rather it be a choice but a choice that individuals are free to make. Regardless, the biggest part I want to know is does it matter if it is a choice or not? If it is a choice it should be one anyone is free to have. But I guess if we say that then certain people will condemn it as the wrong choice. Well, I’m lost and I am hoping you can help me answer this question as you have probably thought about it more than I have.

As you may gather from what I’ve said above, the only “choice” involved in homosexuality is whether to come out and be known as a gay person or stay in the closet and deny your nature. Honest straight people know that they never chose to be straight. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Sexual expression is. Someone may be attracted sexually to dogs (orientation) but never act on their impulses (expression). They have the desire but choose not to act on it. Many gay people are like this.

2) I think this is strait forward. I want to know how closely do you identify as a gay compared to other issues in your life? Do you identify so closely because it is an issue that needs to be solved or because there is a genuine community there. I don’t know if you are familiar with Vonnegut’s book Cat’s Cradle but in that book he talks about a “karass” and “granfalloon.” Basically, a “karass” is a community of individuals who’s lives directly effect each other, revolve around the same object, and reach the same conclusion; a “granfallon” is just a false “karass” (e.g. in the book one of the characters gives the example that a “granfallon” is the community formed by alumni from a college or people living in the same town). The question might be unfair but do you feel the gay community is a “karass.” The reason I think this might be an unfair question is because I feel like it is a “karass” and at the same time is not. The gay community has cetain common goal but at the same time they are clearly individuals. At my school right now we have a very big GLBT program and they seem to fight over issues all the time. The in no way seem like an actual community any more than the United States is a community. Granted they unify when a threat is apparent similar to how the United States unifies. So I am unsure how strong the bond is between gay individuals.

Community has value beyond agreement on issues. Sometimes it’s nice just to know you aren’t alone. The gay aspects of my personality come into play fairly often throughout the day. I think my sense of humor owes a lot to my gayness, my feelings of being an outsider to much of society. I frequently act as the stereotypical gay man to break the ice or add punch to a humorous situation. However, I’m not much of a joiner. I’ve spent the better part of 50 years defining myself and getting to know myself. I’m reluctant to subjugate that to group think. Quite often I’ll join a group simply to show solidarity without any intention of joining in the activities of that group. Gays usually feel united by their gayness in larger, non-gay social groups. That’s why there are organizations for gay Christians, gay Republicans, etc.

There’s also the fact that it is an issue that needs to be discussed in the open and in light of recent medical discoveries. Homophobia is usually caused by ignorance (when it’s source isn’t self-loathing). The best cure for ignorance is education. Discussing homosexuality publically provides education and dispels ignorance. For that reason I’d be supportive of gay people even if I was totally straight.

3) Again, this is strait forward. I myself try to avoid such words. I treat the issue like I treat feminist and race issues. I think certain words can be empowering and demeaning at the same time–depending on how you use it. But my question is more how do you as an individual feel when you hear some kid say to his friend “that’s gay” or “stop being gay”?

Again, it doesn’t bother me. I’m far more cautious around a person who talks about “faggots” than I am around a kid who says my opinion is “so gay”. Straights who use “faggot” and “queer” are exposing their intolerance and hostility toward gays. That’s a warning sign any gay should heed and be aware of.

4) To me it seems like being gay may very well open you up. It allows you to better understand that people are different. That things can be looked at from different perspectives and still be right. What do you think?

Absolutely. When you’re different, it’s natural to be more sympathetic to others considered different. It evens helps when entertaining ideas that are different and outside the mainstream. Perhaps that’s why throughout history some of the most creative people have been gay.

When I was assigned to the NSA while in the Army, they made it clear that they weren’t automatically disqualifying anyone just because they were gay or used drugs recreationally. Code breaking is a creative art that requires thinking outside the norm. They knew that creative people included gays and pot smokers. All they required was that whatever your particular “abnormality”, you disclose it fully to your friends and family so that no opportunity for blackmail existed. That was the motivation for my coming out to my family and friends. Everyone already knew I smoked pot.

I want to apologize if anything came off insensitive and for the poor witting. I am not proof reading this because it is a little difficult for me to send this and if I proof read it I am afraid I will change my mind. Also, I happen to be a bad writer an a little drunk (which is no condition to be in while writing such an inquiry). So I am sorry for any difficulty. Also, it might be well to say I am far younger than you and thus will not mind you scolding me nor will I mind you talking down to me in your response. You can also write it as a lecture if you wish or any way you might want.

I actually applaud your desire to satisfy your curiosity first hand instead of settling for second hand information. If I had a question about coding a website, I’d be more inclined to ask someone who has done that very thing rather than read a book (that may have been written by someone with no practical knowledge) or take any old Joe’s opinion on the subject. Further, it does me good to reexamine my attitudes and beliefs now and then. Whenever I’m asked about my orientation I have another reason to reevaluate my thoughts and opinions. I’m glad you asked. I just hope my answers are sufficient. If not, feel free to ask further questions.

No need to ask if they belong, they’ve been there all along. My first gay experience was in the Army. We have served, fought and died alongside our straight brothers in arms as long as America has been going to war.

Randy Shilts, the author of “Conduct Unbecoming,” knows otherwise. He has written a convincing and readable narrative on gay life in uniform, from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf. Mr. Shilts, a national correspondent for The San Francisco Chronicle and the author of “And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic,” supports his new book with interviews of more than a thousand people, including military personnel (150 still in uniform, their identities shielded), their families and lawyers. Under the Freedom of Information Act, he gained access to nearly 15,000 pages of material about investigations, courts-martial and policy-making concerning homosexuals in the armed forces. So he delivers some surprising information. He writes:

“Today, gay soldiers jump with the 101st Airborne, wear the Green Beret of the Special Forces and perform top-level jobs in the ‘black world’ of covert operations. Gay Air Force personnel have staffed missile silos in North Dakota, flown the nuclear-armed bombers of the Strategic Air Command and navigated Air Force One. Gay sailors dive with the Navy Seals, tend the nuclear reactors on submarines and teach at the Naval War College. A gay admiral commanded the fleet assigned to one of the highest-profile military operations of the past generation. The homosexual presence on aircraft carriers is so pervasive that social life on the huge ships for the past 15 years has included gay newsletters and clandestine gay discos. Gay Marines guard the President in the White House honor guard and protect U.S. embassies around the world.”

“Conduct Unbecoming” is equally revealing about the difficulties encountered by lesbians in uniform. We learn that women face even greater discrimination than men. When accused of homosexuality, some women “prove” themselves not to be lesbians by having sex with men. Those who will not acquiesce to sexual advances, often by superior officers, are routinely accused of being lesbian and are liable to discharge. Anti-gay regulations have encouraged sexual harassment, the author reports. The records and interviews with lesbians indicate that military commands are far more inclined to investigate homosexuals than to investigate sexual harassment of women.

Mr. Shilts shows the military attitudes by citing the language of Army regulations: “Homosexuality is a manifestation of a severe personality defect, which appreciably limits the ability of such individuals to function effectively in a military environment.” Navy regulations: “Homosexuals and other sexual deviates are military liabilities who cannot be tolerated in a military organization.” And the Air Force: “Participation in a homosexual act, or proposing or attempting to do so, is considered a very serious misbehavior.”

The official language invites a reader to think about such misbehavior as the Tailhook scandal last year, when airmen assaulted servicewomen. That case was first covered up and excused as merely a boys-will-be-boys incident until the women pressed charges and the details were exposed in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The fact is that especially in wartime the military has routinely winked at homosexuality and looked the other way. Figures supplied by Mr. Shilts show that discharges for homosexuality drop under combat conditions, when danger was equally shared and sexual orientation was the least of the military’s problems. From World War II to Desert Storm, regulations banning homosexuals were sidestepped. A vast gay subculture existed within the American military stationed in Vietnam; gay bars on what was Tu Do Street when the city was called Saigon were well known to soldiers on leave. Just as the heterosexual G.I.’s quest for diversion was institutionalized into a circuit of bars and brothels, so was the homosexual’s search for a good time. (Source)

Read more about pioneering journalist Randy Shilts here.

Christians often point out that atheists, primarily those in the U.S., tend to criticize their religion and rarely comment on other faiths.

I don’t dispute this, but the reason should be obvious.  In America Christianity is the majority religious belief.  When I discuss computers, I will most often refer to PCs running Microsoft Windows.  That’s the dominant player in that field.  Likewise, when discussing religion, I most often refer to Christianity as that’s the largest movement within my frame of reference.

Still, I wouldn’t want the Muslims to feel ignored, so allow me to post this image as an acknowledgment that Islam is every bit as nonsensical as Christianity.

A discussion of the relative merits of intelligent design (conclusion: there are none) got me to thinking…

The i/d crowd want us to believe that there exists (somewhere, they can’t/won’t say where) a supreme designer, and that all of nature exhibits clear and convincing evidence of having been designed. All of nature was created by this designer (how else to impart design on creation), making the designer the creator. Let’s not forget this creative concept is supported by an unusually large number of Protestant Christian ministers and believers. But in the interest of honesty and to show they can be unbiased they refuse to name this creator/designer.

I will.  It’s the judeo-christian god.  Surprise!  Should I have posted a “spoiler alert”?

So basically i/d calls god a designer.  What else might this lead us to conclude about his character.

We know he’s a designer, so let’s take a look at his work and see what we can find. What do the elements of his design reveal?

That he’s gay.

First of all, he’s a designer. Hello?

He designed disco into existence. That may be a step down from the old days when he would level entire civilizations just because they didn’t friend him back in their social network, but it’s still a blight on humanity from which rich, urban yuppie-puppies are only now able to appreciate.  There’s only one reason god would have created disco.  Remember, he also created glow sticks, lube and amyl.

This unnamed creator <wink, wink, nudge, nudge> designed animals with vestigial organs.  He designed a planet that rebuilds itself every few eons and at some point will wipe out this “ultimate” creation of his perhaps without a trace.  He built humans with their organs for pleasure combined with their organs for the expulsion of waste.  No one could exhibit such wit, such whimsy, such an over-the-top disdain for the conventions of style as a flaming queer.

He designed humans without gills on a planet the majority of which is covered with water.  But he designed fish, certainly he had the skills needed to design human gills.  It was precisely because he’d given fish gills, then eels and salamanders and sharks and so on that he wanted to break the mold, to look in a new direction.  No feathers for humans, no scales, no gills.  No fur but a dash of hair here, there and oh, especially there.  It’s so daring, so against the trend; you’re going to try to tell me a straight designer could do that?

God invented musicals.

God refused to have sex with his son’s mother.  The source material isn’t specific about the method used but most scholars agree we can rule out the possibility that god actually lodged his divine appendage in the soon-to-be-temporary home of Jesus.

God’s biggest adversary is the devil, another guy.  All the cool archangels were guys.  God plays a harp.

And can I get a hearty amen from all you on the religious right when I claim with no substantiation that a gay father will no doubt produce gay sons.  It’s not like straight couples produce gay boys, do they?  Queer daddies = queer sons.  That explains those 12 apostles, the hookers, the whole thing with his kid.

God, the great designer, is the fruitiest of all, the honorary king of every pride parade.

* Religion is so transparent. It’s stories people made up to explain things they didn’t understand. It’s mythology born of ignorance and perpetrated by those who exploit the gullibility of the masses. No religion has ever been invented that doesn’t reflect the values and hopes of the society from which it was spawned. Gods are just ourselves writ large.

* Most religious people have replaced their concept of god with their holy book. Like all of us, theists are uncomfortable believing in stories that in any other context would be considered bat-shit crazy. We all grow out of our belief in Santa. Religion is the Santa myth for adults. The Bible is a physical thing. We can all agree it’s real. Not that it relates reality, but the book exists in the physical universe. If there were no Bible how would Christians validate their beliefs? So subtly they haven’t even noticed, theists have taken their holy books as their gods. It is the source of their faith, their hope, their guidance. They won’t admit it, but as long as they have their Bibles and Korans and Torahs, they really don’t need to think about their gods.

* No heterosexual I’ve talked to, challenged or debated has been able to explain how gay marriage will impact straight marriage. Not a one. Truth is, it won’t. There isn’t a single coherent reason to think that gay marriage will have any effect on anyone else’s marriage. People who try to justify denying equal rights to any citizen of this country are bigots, period.

* There are atheists in foxholes.

* Atheists cannot and do not try to prove there is no god.

* Atheists can be as moral as any theist.

* There is no good reason to exempt religion from criticism, skepticism and public denunciation.

* The god of the Old Testament, the guy who supposedly killed hundreds of innocent women and children just to make a point, who demanded blood sacrifice, who encouraged his people to rape and pillage is the same god of the New Testament.

* For god so loved the world that he couldn’t be bothered to do anything for them himself; he told his kid to go and make everything he’d screwed up right again.

* Jesus came to change the hearts of those who heard him and believed. Two thousand years later not much has changed about human nature. But world wars have been fought over who has the most powerful invisible friend.

* No sane, well educated person can believe in the literal truth of a holy book.

* Many sane, well educated people believe in gods. Which just goes to show intelligence can have its limitations.

* Believing you have an invisible friend who loves you and wants the best for you but will send you to eternal torment for simply thinking for yourself is nonsensical. Plainly put, religious belief is stupid. Thinking that humans aren’t mammals, that we are some sort of unique creature, is stupid. Thinking that some super being created the world in seven days is stupid.

* Teaching children too young to have developed critical thinking skills that gods are real is child abuse.

* All the evidence we have to date suggests that life is a fluke, a one-time coincidence of millions of factors working in conjunction to produce something unique in the universe. There is no ultimate purpose, no meaning, no plan. All of humanity will evolve, live and become extinct without the rest of the universe having noticed at all. Do those thoughts intimidate you? Then you should invent a story about a superhuman who’s in control of everything, so that whether or not you understand reality you can feel better about the fact you (and I and everyone else who has ever lived) are inconsequential to the universe. If you allow fantasy to overtake your mind reality can’t scare you anymore.

* To steal and expand on a thought from one of my idols, George Carlin; we shouldn’t be blaming politicians, lawyers and ministers/priests/the Pope for our social ills. They aren’t to blame. They’re simply the shysters who moved in and took advantage of a situation we created.
** We’re to blame for crappy politicians. We elected them. We gave the crooks keys to the vault of power. We refuse to remove them when they betray our trust, when they fail to do the job we entrusted to them.
** If we weren’t so quick to sue anybody and everybody who offends us in the slightest, lawyering would be a far less popular profession. We keep throwing chum into the water and acting surprised when the sharks start to circle the boat. Even the Muslims want to sue anyone who blasphemes their religion. If that’s not the height of stupidity I’m not sure what qualifies. Settle differences like adults, with reason, empathy and compassion. Lawyers who are truly adept at playing the system we created become candidates, then politicians. Or lobbyists. Same thing. We weren’t vigilant. We let them get away with amassing power and position, then we finally notice and whine they have ruined everything. Bullshit. We were lazy and we got burned. No one to blame but ourselves.
** Someday (I can only hope) mankind will have moved on from their psychological need for gods, and thousands of people who have made a lifestle, occasionally lavish, of other people’s gullibility will be out of a job. Seldom do theists question the faith of those who lead them. They take them at their word that they believe as strongly as their followers. Sometimes subconsciously, theists confer sanctity upon their leaders. Which explains their disbelief when their minister is arrested for rape, sodomy and public solicitation charges. “The devil must have overcome Rev. Bob. He would never do that otherwise.” Yes, he would. Queers act like queers. If they’re still in the closet, they act queer whenever they get the chance. I’ve had married lovers. Some of them were clergy. I’ve also had a few girlfriends who were ministers daughters. I don’t remember any of them as particularly shy. It’s time for theists to be honest with themselves and admit that their leaders are not above reproach. And for your god’s sake, get rid of the ones who harm those who look to them with trust. When you catch the shepherd fucking the sheep, you replace the shepherd. You should apologize to the sheep, but that rarely happens. Monetary awards under force of law, yes. Apology, remorse, admission of guilt, assumption of responsibility, nope.

* If any of the above pisses you off, makes you think, makes you want to fire off a passionate reply…please do. I only censor spam. You want to condemn me to hell, do your best. I don’t suffer fools. If you have something to say, show us all the courtesy of replying with substance. This is the blog where I let loose of all my normal restraints. I am under no obligation to be respectful of your beliefs, it’s no guarantee I’ll agree with you just because you, too, are a heathen, queer, left-handed or fascinated with classical music. I am an equal opportunity grump, skeptic and I’m getting old. That means lots of life experience. I am not consistent. I have no interest in being easily categorized. One thing about getting older; I’ve encountered a lot of bullshit in my time.

I’ll try to be fair, but I don’t promise to be kind.