At what transgenetically-modified percentile can a cow “legally” marry a human being?
822601
HOLYCOW - what a funny question...
881006
Possible, but not probable.\n\nIf one looks at the variations of canines and felines that have been developed through human breeding problems you do get the idea that this may be possible.\n\nHowever, domestic cattle have been associated with humans for a very long time and there seems to be a very much smaller difference between the variations.  In part, this is due to the goals being different (meat production, milk production, smaller horns).\n\nWhat you are talking about is a process that might take centuries and there must be a clear cut goal and reason to require such an expenditure of resources.\n\nIt sound like you want to reduce a typical weight of 1,200 to 1,800 pounds down to 80.  This may not be possible.
278328
Animals that have a transgene inserted into them. A transgene is any DNA that is not normally in the animals Genome, like GFP (green fluorescent protein).
333695
I actually saw a tv show about this. Some guy married his goat and another married a horse, might have been a lady that married the horse....\n\nWhat ever trips your trigger!!\n\nJust found a couple of articles....ok 3 or more\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm\nhttp://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,3032,00.html\nhttp://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02
823928
"I want to marry my dog"\nOk there's your example.  It is a slippery slope argument.  The institution of marriage was intended to be a sacred bond between one man and one woman.  What happens when you go outside of that?  The next step is polygamy.  Why shouldn't a man marry his favorite 12 women?  Let's take it farther: Why shouldn't a man marry a young boy, if the boy is consenting?  Why shouldn't beastiality be acceptable to the government as legit?  What about incest?  Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to marry a tree?\n\nThe danger is the cheapening of marriage and making a mockery of it.  This breeds apathy, which is what brought down the Roman Empire.
377334
you need to find boy lamb and a girl lamb that love each other very much. Ditto for the cows.
54709
Good point! \nI also believe that homosexual marriages have no bearing on religion. Giving a legal marriage to a gay couple is not the same as forcing all churches in America to accept and perform the marriages. I really don't see why religion has a say in it, since I do believe in the seperation between church and state, and since no one's forcing all the religious damning homophobes to suddenly accept homosexuality. \nIt's very relatable to interracial marriages. And no it won't lead to beastiality or incest becoming legalized, since beastiality is just stupid and wrong and no one can say that one can love a cow, and incest is genetically wrong, so that won't ever be legalized either, don't give me your snowball fallacies.
535759
No, the animals would have to be very closely related species. For example, a sheep and a goat, a dog and a wolf, and sure, probably a horse and a zebra.\n\nIn fact, this has been done in several cases to revive a seriously endangered species. While I forget what type of animal it was, there was only a single one left on earth, so they cloned it using somatic cell nuclear transfer and implanted the "fertilized" zygote into a member of a closely related species. That species then gave birth to the cloned individual of the endangered species.
657317
It depends on the ELISA method you are trying to use and the antigen of interest.  In the most basic sense if the cow Ig also recognized the antigen in question, then it would be possible to use a human-designed assay with cow antibody.  There is also no reason a bovine-specific ELISA assay couldn't be developed.
807276
The acceptability of both is certainly culturally defined. While I will not issue an opinion on either, I am certainly willing to discuss the logic behind the various opinions often presented on the topic. One argument is that of religion. I will set aside the flawed logic of religion in general for the purpose of this discussion. If we seek to examine this issue within the context of our society's laws, we must examine the issue absent of religion...due to the separation of church and state.\n\nReligious issues set aside, we are left with the argument as it relates to the potential for the production of children with genetic birth defects. While incestuous breeding can arguably be linked to a increase in the likelihood of genetic birth defects, I do not see this alone as a reason to outlaw incestuous relationships. Consider this: If we were to outlaw a relationship between two individuals that had a higher likelihood of producing offspring with genetic birth defects (this, as well, is culturally defined to a certain degree), we would have to outlaw relationships between two consenting adults who are not related but both happen to have a genetic birth defect of their own. The answer above mine also raises the valid point that gay incestuous relationships would be exempt from this concern as well.\n\nIf we cannot outlaw it due to religion, and we cannot outlaw it because of the likelihood of producing genetic birth defects, then what is left? I would say that the only remaining argument would be that an incestuous relationship challenges our society's very definition (some would say "institution") of family, and what roles a family is intended to play. However, many have argued that homosexual relationships (specifically marriages) challenge our society's definition of marriage, yet our society is more readily accepting of homosexuality than it is of incest. \n\nTherefore, I fail to find a logical argument supporting any law against incest. This of course assumes that the relationship is between consenting adults of sound mind and legal age.
585949
No.\n\nThere are several reasons. First, most "animal characteristics" are not the result of a single gene. Instead, they require many genes products working together with each other and the rest of the body. This is a level of complexity we simply don't understand yet.\n\nAnother major issue is getting the DNA into a person. People are beginning to experiment with modified viruses (ie, cannot replicate) for this purpose, but so far nothing has worked very well. Probably the biggest obstacle to gene therapy is a workable way to get new DNA into a person's cells.\n\nIn simpler organisms the DNA modifications have been done directly with fertilized eggs. That's a simple thing to do with plants and fruitflies, but a very difficult thing (not to mention the ethics involved) to do with people.\n\nWhile we are very able to insert particular genes into some cells, don't look for animal characteristics in the foreseeable future.
334905
Adopted siblings are no more allowed to marry than blood siblings.  It is illegal in every state.
130339
"Breeding" looks like it fits the bill.  \n:-)  Hope this helps!
55818
Human cloning is practically possible. That is ,it can be done. But the actual human cloning is at present; illegal.\nAt the same time animal cloning has not even been perfected. Only 1 or 2 offsprings are gotten from about 100 experiments.
366636
there are some efforts going on to bring mammoth to life by using its frozen sperm. with an african elephant. as far as cloning goes i dont have any idea.
314891
Only 10 percent of all animals in the animal kingdom mate for life, so the odds against humans being monogamous.And love has nothing to do with sex,as the worlds oldest professions can attest to!
1062510
Ooooh. This might be one of those situations which you would have to marry him for that to be legal. Name one of the mutant offsplring after me.