Can't we just drop a nuke on the Vatican

[Greyblades]

Yes well your contributions don't put you in much of a position to be laughing at or pitying anybody.

The acts of laughter and pity are rarely contingent to your location.

You don't need to keep asking why, and no, "because the Bible said so" was never my answer. You may notice I have never mentioned or even implied it's significance here.

It comes with the territory of unabashed fundamental religion, particularly the elements that consider acts that cause no unwanted harm to others "evil", it always sources back to dogma, for how else does someone start regarding things innocuous as evil.

What I have done is suggest that homosexuality runs contrary to a more natural lifestyle.

Whether you consider it natural is irrelevent, even if nature existed as anything but a word humanity use for things not of our cause, you called it evil and didn't protest when through my questioning I stated that you consider it evil, the inherent assumption that comes with the word evil of "I hate it". That it is directed to something harmless in all senses of the word is enough for me to laugh at and pity you.

And of course the Pope meets none of those conditions, but I'm not Catholic.

And I am, on paper at least, and few are more aware than I that religious based views of little logic or regard are not restricted to the "holy" church

[Papewaio]

Spoiler alert.

Heterosexual acts are not the only way to procreate. Test tube babies have been around for awhile.

Spoiler alert II

asexual assisted human reproduction ie cloning is a very real near reality. It is a matter of eningeerin solutions not scientific breakthroughs.

=][=

If it is to define a human the desire to procreate and have a long term partner then I do not think celibate priests should be adjudicating. I do not agree with that idea, but I do listen to subject matter experts as a matter of professional habit.

As such I'd rather listen to people in long term partnerships on the sanctity of marriage.

Also if any society offers social benefits to married couples it is immoral to tax those who are denied like representation. Gay adults denied marriage should at a minimum be tax exempt as they are being denied equal representation of their life bond. There is no sanctity in marriage when it is denied by bigots to all adults regardless of sex, race or creed. A bigoted rite is not a human right.

Screw society when they screw with which adult can screw whomever other adult of sound mind.

[Fragony]

That is where I draw the line, cloning humans so homosexual couples can have their abomination of life? Homosexuals shouldn't be harrased in any way but what the fuck are you on about here, that is sick pap's. It is not possible for homosexual couples to have kids that is something that is just to be accepted. Cloning are you really being serious? I am going to side with the relinuts if so.

[Papewaio]

So you have something against twins? Clones are twins with a time offset.

Hypotheticals
Child has a disease. It can be cured by a siblings cord cells 50% of the time, but a clones cord cells 100% of the time.

Einstein's Twin?

Cloned organs. Not the whole being just a kidney or a heart from the donors cell, infused into a matrix and grown to replace the original owners defective part.

=][=

FYI cloning is how the vast majority of life reproduces. Sexual reproduction is so rare to be practically unnatural.

[Fragony]

That's all fine with me, but using gen-tech to give homosexual couples the ability to have kids is a stretch too far for me. I am by now perfectly ok with gay marriage, and uncomfortably ok with gay couples adopting a kid, but using gen-tech for this is a big no. Sure it can be done, but there are just limits to what should be possible. It's perfectly fine if someone is gay, but gays can't reproduce and that should stay that way, here is where the equality ends.

Kinda curious what Panzer has to say on this

[lars573]

Actually most reproductive doctors will tell you identical twins are natural clones.

That's all fine with me, but using gen-tech to give homosexual couples the ability to have kids is a stretch too far for me. I am by now perfectly ok with gay marriage, and uncomfortably ok with gay couples adopting a kid, but using gen-tech for this is a big no. Sure it can be done, but there are just limits to what should be possible. It's perfectly fine if someone is gay, but gays can't reproduce and that should stay that way, here is where the equality ends.

They can already to that, and have been doing it. For lesbians anyway. Also homosexuals have been having kids since time immemorial.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually most reproductive doctors will tell you identical twins are natural clones.


They can already to that, and have been doing it. For lesbians anyway. Also homosexuals have been having kids since time immemorial.

Except that a clone implys an original, and there is no original with twins.

So maybe most doctors are wrong.

[Conradus]

FYI cloning is how the vast majority of life reproduces. Sexual reproduction is so rare to be practically unnatural.

Except in advanced species?

[Papewaio]

My response was to the statement that heterosexual procreation is the only way to produce humans.

Untrue as proved with decades of test tube babies around.

=][=

Humans don't currently clone ourselves and I wasn't referring to the parents sexual preference just hat we have yet another method other then procreation.

=][=

Humans are very advanced. Yet we aren't exactly what we think we are. Over half our cells by number or about the human brain in weight are bacteria within the body. We are a symbiotic creature and that means most of our occupying cells procreate by asexual (autonomous cloning) reproduction in our body.

Stuff around with our bacteria reactor within our gut and we can die.

[Fragony]

Ok fair enough, but there is destined to be an activist who furiously demands the right to use said technoligy. There has to be a limit somewhere and that limit is same-sex couples being able to reproduce. It wouldn't be a human anymore just something that looks like it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you have something against twins? Clones are twins with a time offset.

No they aren't - Twins are formed when an embryo splits, clones are created from cells taken from a mature organism, which are then converted back into stem cells and implanted - totally different process, and it's been shown not to work too well thus far.

Anyway - I can just ignore the scientific solutions on the grounds that they are not part of man's natural condition, will never be universally available like sex, and should be disregarded from the moral question.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Anyway - I can just ignore the scientific solutions on the grounds that they are not part of man's natural condition, will never be universally available like sex, and should be disregarded from the moral question.

This is my response to Papewaio.

[Papewaio]

Anyway - I can just ignore the scientific solutions on the grounds that they are not part of man's natural condition, will never be universally available like sex, and should be disregarded from the moral question.

My argument was that there are other means of human reproduction other then procreation. One of which is a near future possibility the other a day to day reality.

=][=
Using 'not man's natural condition' or 'unnatural' is a weak an argument as a Godwin or 'Save teh Childrenz'

You are literally arguing against modern history. Well against the literature of it. Until the written word existed our histories, stories, knowledge, spirituality, laws and understanding of the world around us was limited to ourselves and oral history.

Books are unnatural and until the printing press limited to a select few. I find a heavy dose of irony that we told these few bright sparks hidden away in monasteries and teaching at universities that since they were enlightened to not procreate. Imagine how much brighter our population would have been if we hadn't culled out the brightest for generations.

Back on topic. Books are not a natural part of the human condition. History as interpreted from these musty volumes would not even exist as a discipline without them. So should we discard all of history as some diabolical byproduct of an unnatural process?

I don't think so. Then again I'm traveling to work, dressed in clothes and shoes, on a train, around bends, under overpasses, across bridges, across a harbour and debating this on the Internet via a mobile phone. So I'm clearly biased towards utilizing technology outside of man's natural condition.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My argument was that there are other means of human reproduction other then procreation. One of which is a near future possibility the other a day to day reality.

=][=
Using 'not man's natural condition' or 'unnatural' is a weak an argument as a Godwin or 'Save teh Childrenz'

You are literally arguing against modern history. Well against the literature of it. Until the written word existed our histories, stories, knowledge, spirituality, laws and understanding of the world around us was limited to ourselves and oral history.

Books are unnatural and until the printing press limited to a select few. I find a heavy dose of irony that we told these few bright sparks hidden away in monasteries and teaching at universities that since they were enlightened to not procreate. Imagine how much brighter our population would have been if we hadn't culled out the brightest for generations.

Back on topic. Books are not a natural part of the human condition. History as interpreted from these musty volumes would not even exist as a discipline without them. So should we discard all of history as some diabolical byproduct of an unnatural process?

I don't think so. Then again I'm traveling to work, dressed in clothes and shoes, on a train, around bends, under overpasses, across bridges, across a harbour and debating this on the Internet via a mobile phone. So I'm clearly biased towards utilizing technology outside of man's natural condition.

Books are an extension of the signs all cultures use - we just sat down and systematised them. Trains are just complicated sleds rolling on complicated logs. These are incremental improvements to technologies even apes use. In vitro fertalisation is a completely different matter and the bald fact is it takes two to tango and they can't both be dudes.

The current proposal to change eggs into sperm just proves this - because of the extreme lengths you have to go to. For two people of the same gender to procreate you are actually have to, in effect, have one change gender.