quote:
What is natural for a human, as in the environment where humanity evolved, is a hunter-gatherer scenario where the group numbers don't exceed 200 members, and group cohesion is promoted by dual mating strategies of polyamory and pair-bonding. Talking about what is natural in any other context is nonsensical, as the way we live now isn't natural by any definition. Why should this particular 'argument from nature' be privileged over other 'arguments from nature?'

Can you name a time that two humans of the same sex birthed a child? I'd say that's pretty fricking unnatural. If my child was born with a tail like a monkey I'd say that's pretty fricking unnatural.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by crazy4lsu

Member since May 2005

36571 posts

Posted on 12/22/19 at 1:15 pm to rooster108bm

quote:

Can you name a time that two humans of the same sex birthed a child?

It is within the realm of possibility with technology. LINK

At one point in time, it was unnatural for an artificial pacemaker to provide conduction for the heart. Now we don't care. If such technology developed that allowed same-sex couples to insert their DNA into a child, would you still care?

quote:
If my child was born with a tail like a monkey I'd say that's pretty fricking unnatural.

Humans have tail-like structures until the 6th week of gestation. All sorts of things can happen for a child to be born with a tail, all of them related to embryonic development. It is within the realm of possibility for humans, yet somehow that's considered unnatural for you? I need to know what you consider natural and unnatural.

To me, discussing things with perfect strangers over devices that are made through the interaction of code, non-metals, organic materials and heavy metals would be unnatural by any definition, yet here we are.

This post was edited on 12/22/19 at 1:22 pm

2 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board