Can't we just drop a nuke on the Vatican

[Sir Moody]

but why?

why shouldn't they?

do you really have a good reason? or is it more "its immoral" waffle which doesn't really say anything

[rory_20_uk]

I was with you until the adoption bit.

I am sure that they are just as able to bring up children as hetro couples. The strawmen you mention appears to imply that gay couples are going to be by default worse than hetro couples. Any reason why?

If there was a scarcity of children to adopt I might put hetro couples first. Since there is a glut of children who are otherwise passed around foster homes or state run dumps I'm more than happy to utilise a resource that is present.

[caravel]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.

+1

The thread was solved at this point...

Yes marriage (and indeed the church) can be "removed from the state" or civil marriage can be clearly separated from religious marriage as it is in some countries and then gays and lesbians allowed to marry with the same rights as heteros. The religious establishment can then do as they please and (almost) everyone's happy.

The only ones who will find fault are those who would go to a Chinese restaurant and order Pizza - such people will always exist irrespective of what team they're batting for...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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)

Space Marines, Master Chief, Old Man's War... Gatica...

There aren't any good outcomes envisaged with genetic engineering.

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.

Well, believe in God, so what not.

But... what I'm really saying is I've seen enough weird stuff that I'm willing to believe something might be going on, although the "something" in question might well be genetic determinism.

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"

Selection is different to modification though

[Montmorency]

There aren't any good outcomes envisaged with genetic engineering.

The only valid outcomes for assessment are those expressed in narrative format?

Space Marines, Master Chief,

although the "something" in question might well be genetic determinism.

Well, something is technically always going on, right?

[Papewaio]

Space Marines, Master Chief and Old Mans War... Aren't they all examples of why genetic engineering is a requirement.

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.

In the Halo universe humanity would have been wiped out without the help of the Spartans.

So based on your examples I will do a Blackadder Xmas and thoroughly embrace genetic engineering as being a means to saving humans from extinction at the hands of aliens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Space Marines, Master Chief and Old Mans War... Aren't they all examples of why genetic engineering is a requirement.

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.

In the Halo universe humanity would have been wiped out without the help of the Spartans.

So based on your examples I will do a Blackadder Xmas and thoroughly embrace genetic engineering as being a means to saving humans from extinction at the hands of aliens.

Point - but it's still pretty horrific tech.

[drone]

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.

Adeptus Custodes. Glorified federales won't stop the xenos hordes.

[Greyblades]

Adeptus custodes? The goons who havent seen combat since the emperor's entombment? Nah, it's the Imperial Guard and space fleets that hold humanity together.

Being serious though genetic engineering like all other technologies have the entire spectrum of possibilities good and bad and while human genetic engineering might be portrayed as dubious I dont see why that should stop us from making the process of getting the species of delicious mutant cows bigger at a quicker rate than ever before. Oh and the ability to make sure that every child is born free of horrific birth defects, that'd be nice too.

[Papewaio]

Adeptus Custodes. Glorified federales won't stop the xenos hordes.

Thank you.

They are a bit more then glorified federales...

[Papewaio]

Point - but it's still pretty horrific tech.

That is looking through a militant sci fi lense.

Genetic engineering could be used to minimize disease, cure paraplegic patients, remove deafness if desired, extend lifespan. It can be used to create a targeted genetic trait rather then a random one.

Increased yield, drought resistance, better nutrients are all outcomes we can do with crops.

[Sir Moody]

several scifi franchises have shown both the positives and negatives of Genetic engineering

Star Trek for example

The Doctors in all series after the original regularly cure problem with gene therapy or dna altering compounds

Equally there are a lot of episodes involving Engineered diseases or even "Super" soldiers (ie Khan)

now it is true you don't see many Scifi franchises treat GE as anything other than a Pandora's Box but that is primarily due to the consumers knowledge of the subject - most people know enough to see the obvious pit falls (super soldiers, super diseases etc) without seeing the immense benefits that can also come with it - and the authors play to their audience

[rory_20_uk]

Loads of techs can be used for good or bad. Gunpowder, writing, explosives, computers to choose a few of the lesser thought about ones. Nuclear is always top of the list.

Luddites at the time were against new things (albeit mainly for job protection) and many new discoveries are treated in the same way.

Sci-Fi is there to tell a good yarn, and men have a preponderance to want to hear about discord and violence, not a 300 page book on how wonderful and peaceful life is in the new Utopia thanks to [insert blank].

[HoreTore]

A thread on gay marriage derailed into a discussion of how the imperium can stop orks and tyranids....

Even for the Backroom, this is surprising.

[Papewaio]

Well the spacemarines are a 'celibate' order of monks... Who have overtones that are very manly like a bunch of singing lumberjacks ... But that's okay.

[drone]

A thread on gay marriage derailed into a discussion of how the imperium can stop orks and tyranids....

Even for the Backroom, this is surprising.

Rome and the Catholic Church is the source material for the Imperium (even though the Emperor is Turkish), so it's not that big of a stretch. Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean, yada yada yada.

[CrossLOPER]

...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.

Don't undermine the purpose of the internet forum.

Space Marines

You just killed you own argument.

[Beskar]

+1

The thread was solved at this point...

Yes marriage (and indeed the church) can be "removed from the state" or civil marriage can be clearly separated from religious marriage as it is in some countries and then gays and lesbians allowed to marry with the same rights as heteros. The religious establishment can then do as they please and (almost) everyone's happy.

The only ones who will find fault are those who would go to a Chinese restaurant and order Pizza - such people will always exist irrespective of what team they're batting for...

The UK has Civil Unions, but there are some restrictions and differences, and they are mostly economically and legal. David Cameron's proposal was to simply make them equal in the eyes of the law and socially (Marriage Equality), and there is "Religious Opt-out" (meaning, religious figures can disallow homosexuals marrying in their churches and do not have to do it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20656207

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

[Greyblades]

Don't undermine the purpose of the internet forum.

I was just cutting the cud, I have yet to encounter an argument saying gay sex (or anything harmless really) is evil that doesnt boil down that way and this one appeared no different.

[Arjos]

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

I completely agree, but at least here in Italy, after civil unions passed, one side complained that it wasn't enough, while the other pointed out how it minimized the church and what marriage represents religiously...
In the end, someone will always take issue: so democratically legislate, letting time and education weed out bigots :P

[jirisys]

A small bomb is enough to be honest. Besides, Italy may blame their scientists for not warning them about it.

~Jirisys ()

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You just killed you own argument.

Because I DARE to reference popular Sci-fi?

The people making the decisions about how to use genetic technology will not be Scientists or Philosophers - they will be politicians. It is inevitable that genetic modification will be used to create an obedient warrior-caste because we have already imagined it several times, and therefore the idea will be put into practice, and because such a caste would be useful to someone with political ambitions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The UK has Civil Unions, but there are some restrictions and differences, and they are mostly economically and legal. David Cameron's proposal was to simply make them equal in the eyes of the law and socially (Marriage Equality), and there is "Religious Opt-out" (meaning, religious figures can disallow homosexuals marrying in their churches and do not have to do it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20656207

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

There's also the solution of forcing the religious minority into obedience, as has been done in Denmark and elsewhere.

That will happen eventually - so they might just as well do it and get this whole sorry joke over with.

I do think this is a joke - it will last just as long as we remain over-populated. Once governments need to encourage pro-creation we'll see "marriage" redefined again accordingly.

[Montmorency]

Once governments need to encourage pro-creation we'll see "marriage" redefined again accordingly.

How do you envision this coming about?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How do you envision this coming about?

They'll create an inducement to procreation - so heterosexual couples who stay together will get preferential treatment.

Oh,wait...

It'll happen when our society enters a period of regress.

[Montmorency]

It'll happen when our society enters a period of regress.

No, it could only come about after such a period. If economic, political, and ecological strife are reaching a critical point, no one in power would be encouraging procreation unless it happens to involve local warlords and slave-women.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it could only come about after such a period. If economic, political, and ecological strife are reaching a critical point, no one in power would be encouraging procreation unless it happens to involve local warlords and slave-women.

Population fall is a major, if not the major, cause of regress. Without workers the economy begins to decline, without fund technology becomes harder to maintain, the military becomes overstretched...

Regardless, our society will regress at some point and both during and after that point this petty argument about who loves who and whether society approves will seem absurd.

Edit: To clarify - regress continues until recovery. We may think that Rome ended in 476, but the people at the time were still trying to save it and they still thought of themselves as occupied Romans 150 years later.

[Montmorency]

Population fall is a major, if not the major, cause of regress. Without workers the economy begins to decline, without fund technology becomes harder to maintain, the military becomes overstretched...

Once major population decline is occuring, the political institutions are in shambles and governments are not subsidizing anything not related to the military or immediate-term investments in agriculture or high-technology - if national states are even functioning at all, at that point.

Once the situation stabilizes - that's when a new round of population growth becomes either desirable or manageable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now take a look at history - a good starting example would be the baby boom after WWII (when the British Empire was collapsing).

[Montmorency]

The Baby Boom? You mean the one that occurred as a major world crisis came to an end? As millions of men-at-arms returned to their homes following years in combat?

when the British Empire was collapsing

Was this an existential threat to Great Britain itself? I think we're operating on different senses of "regression". From my perspective, GB was in a recovery phase.