Can't we just drop a nuke on the Vatican

[Rhyfelwyr]

Uh huh.

...Ok I'm too bored for this, I'm going to keep saying "why" until you give up saying "shoulds" and say the bible, with all of it's parts written at latest 1500 years ago, or your priest/pope, a man following said bible who's been told interpriting it the churches way is the only moral and that screwing little boys isnt, told you to. Then I'll laugh at you for living your life both on someone else's standards of morality and on hideously out of date standards. Then I'll pity you for letting yourself act that being part of your religion requires you to detest homosexuality.

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

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.

What I have done is suggest that homosexuality runs contrary to a more natural lifestyle. To avoid any obfuscation over what I mean by 'natural', I mean simply that it is something innate in all people, that it is essential to the human condition and indeed an individuals happiness. To me, this is natural revelation that is merely supported by more direct divine (Biblical) revelation. And indeed, I believe that the traditional nuclear family is all of these things.

If you are going to go "why why why" like a five year old, then here is the obvious answer. Heterosexual procreation is the only means of continuing the human race, and since procreation has never been restricted to pack or hive leaders within the human species, your average healthy human should want to have heterosexual sex and procreate because it is a necessary part of the human condition. If you lack basic desires like eating, drinking, or procreating, then there is something wrong with you, and you are in fact injuring your own happiness by not fulfilling these desires.

And as for why the desire for marriage or at least a long-term partner should be natural to humanity, that is because it has in the past been necessary to protect the product of their procreation, and so we have the desire to do that imbued in all of us, hence fulfilling those conditions is an essential part of being a healthy, happy person.

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

[Fragony]

Maybe it is the natural order that not everybody should procreate as it would get a little too busy and it was meant that way. Anyhow, homosexuality just exists and they have the right on leading a happy life, nobody has the right to deny them that. There is nothing wrong with it as it isn't harming anyone if someone is attracted to the same sex. So just let them be, nobody is asking anything from you other than that.

[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

[Ironside]

If you are going to go "why why why" like a five year old, then here is the obvious answer. Heterosexual procreation is the only means of continuing the human race, and since procreation has never been restricted to pack or hive leaders within the human species, your average healthy human should want to have heterosexual sex and procreate because it is a necessary part of the human condition. If you lack basic desires like eating, drinking, or procreating, then there is something wrong with you, and you are in fact injuring your own happiness by not fulfilling these desires.

So, you're saying that you know more about what makes gay people happy than what themselves do?

Either you deal with ideals, or you accept reality and adapt.

[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.

[Arjos]

In Italy? Yes, they do. In fact, the very existence of the Vatican is the concession of that fact by Mussolini -- and the Vatican continues to have an active hand in Italian politics to this day.

That isn't true, the Pope has the same impact he'd have on any catholic in the world...
The Lateran Pacts finally settled the Roman Question, defining the relation between Italy and the Pope, who 'til then didn't recognize Italy and pretty much waited and looked for any foreign help to re-establish the papal state.
Later our constitution affirmed how laïcité is the supreme principle of the state, abolishing catholicism as the state religion...
All in all, it was a tactful way to deal with it, the Vatican wasn't "created" out of the blue, but was a far more complex historical reality...

That imo, the church has way too many benefits it's another matter, but the only political influence it might have is with money or if a certain politician would be such a devout fanatic...
But as I said, the latter case is non-existant, as first and foremost, what matter to italian politicians is money and maintaining their position :P

[Papewaio]

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.

If the technology was a single donor clone there is no difference regardless of the sexuality of the parents.

If we are talking about designer babies, I find that repugnant. Particularly when we allow the choice of the child to be based on sex and we terminate even healthy fetuses based on no meeting a certain X or Y criteria.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That isn't true, the Pope has the same impact he'd have on any catholic in the world...

Hmm, somehow I don't quite buy the idea that the word of the Pope confers quite the same authority to every Catholic, from Ireland, Spain Italy, to France, the USA and the Netherlands. Time and place matter. For example in the Netherlands and the USA Catholics have been going pretty much their own way sometimes directly contravening official Papal doctrine. (From positions on sex and marriage to the use of vulgar tongue during mass.)

The Lateran Pacts finally settled the Roman Question, defining the relation between Italy and the Pope, who 'til then didn't recognize Italy and pretty much waited and looked for any foreign help to re-establish the papal state.
Later our constitution affirmed how laïcité is the supreme principle of the state, abolishing catholicism as the state religion...
All in all, it was a tactful way to deal with it, the Vatican wasn't "created" out of the blue, but was a far more complex historical reality...

Well yes but Mussolini did not settle for the Vatican out of the kindness of his good heart. It was a cold political reality: he needed legitimacy and the power that could give it to him was the Church. So did Franco by the way, hence his alliance with the Church. In Ireland, again the clergy conferred significant authority politicians did not dare to doubt.

France, now that would be the exception. I hardly need point out how France differs from nearly every other country in its staunch ideal of laïcité, and it took them quite a bit of effort to get there.

[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.

[Arjos]

Well yes but Mussolini did not settle for the Vatican out of the kindness of his good heart. It was a cold political reality: he needed legitimacy and the power that could give it to him was the Church.

I had in mind the whole process, with the later incorporation with the constitution, but your point serves perfectly: unless there's political gain in siding with the church, politicians just don't do it...
The current catholic party gets at most 6-11% of the electorate, so it's really about forming a coalition if you happen to be desperate for those votes...

[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.

[Papewaio]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

So neither of these should be used as reasons to ignore them. It is much better to figure out what the end consequences are if they do flourish and they map out the consequences of this happening. Then one can decide if a thing is moral or immoral based on what it's journey and destination require and the change to our society by using or denying it.

Also when I talk about clones as twins I'm taking particular aim at the sci fi meme that clones have a shared concious or telepathic ability. They do not, they are just the same DNA book read at different time periods to form a human who is an individual not a gestalt entity.

[Montmorency]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

Every tool is natural.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

So neither of these should be used as reasons to ignore them. It is much better to figure out what the end consequences are if they do flourish and they map out the consequences of this happening. Then one can decide if a thing is moral or immoral based on what it's journey and destination require and the change to our society by using or denying it.

Also when I talk about clones as twins I'm taking particular aim at the sci fi meme that clones have a shared concious or telepathic ability. They do not, they are just the same DNA book read at different time periods to form a human who is an individual not a gestalt entity.

There is a profound and I use the word deliberately, difference between what we do to our environment and what we do to ourselves.

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have, probably because they spend the first nine months of life together and afterward they grow up in parallel even though they diverge there have been studies showing that twins can have a disturbing level of convergence of things as mundane as what to have for dinner.

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

[Montmorency]

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have

Simple enough: causality.

A1 ~= A
A2 ~= A

A, then B

A1, then B
A2, then B

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else.

Perfectly natural.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

One man's abuse is another man's empowerment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One man's abuse is another man's empowerment.

Weapons of Mass Destruction - who is empowered?

[Montmorency]

Would it be mean to respond, "Everyone"? But I'm mostly just yanking you with that.

But WMDs are a good thing to bring up here. They contribute to my larger point, which is that the technology will be propagated regardless of petty intellectual outrage.

Technologies like WMDs (and genetic engineering) are too powerful to be casually abandoned. Even should they not be taken up for private use, states will surely acquire them.

[Kralizec]

There is a profound and I use the word deliberately, difference between what we do to our environment and what we do to ourselves.

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have, probably because they spend the first nine months of life together and afterward they grow up in parallel even though they diverge there have been studies showing that twins can have a disturbing level of convergence of things as mundane as what to have for dinner.

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

I actually agree broadly about genetic technology, but I adimit it's just a gut feeling mostly. I associate it with scenarios like the Spacers from Asimov's SF novels, if you've read those (and even if you didn't read them, I still do)

I'm pretty shocked that you buy those stories about about twins somehow being mentally connected or whatever. I'm a pretty cynical person in general, but I also happen to know multiple (pairs of) identical twins, and to me it's all bull.

[rory_20_uk]

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

Genetic engineering has been done for millennia as we have bred animals and plants to be more suitable for specific roles.
Given genetic engineering is altering natural DNA using natural processes I fail to see how it is "patently obvious"

[Myth]

Gay marriage - OK, whatever floats their boat.
Gays being allowed a state marriage is OK. If the church denies them a church marriage, OK. They can go and get hitched in the Synagogue of Satan for all I care, if the Catholics are against it.
Gays being allowed to adopt children - not OK. And please don't bring the "There are heterosexual couples that abuse children or make bad parents/adoptees" strawman argument.