U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

Hell must be about to freeze over, as this is the first time in history I actually agree with something that this blowhard has to say.  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/28/rush-limbaugh-concedes-conservatives-lost-marriage-debate/?hpt=hp_bn3

smartpatrol wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade. I think we've pretty much surpassed natural selection as a race. It's advanced us to being able to create all these different technologies and advancements that allow many to live who would not otherwise. And with all these extra people alive, we don't necessarily need so many breeders.

Obviously, but that still doesn't make homosexuality natural.  Having 5 percent of the population not producing offspring isn't going to end the survival of the human race, and in fact may actually help in the sense of slowing down overpopulation. 

rushfan4 wrote: Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade.    Despite this, I am all in favor of a little thing that my favorite band sings about called Freewill, and peoples' right to "choose" who they marry or don't marry.  And if a child needs a home and there is an adult or two adults of the same sex that would like to take care of said child than that is what is important.  Everyone knows there are plenty of same sex parents that quite frankly should have those rights taken away from them and there are plenty of straight persons who really should be removed from the gene pool.

Since when did the overriding aim of marriage become exclusively procreation? There are millions of (straight and fertile) couples out there who have precisely zero intention of ever producing kids but take their marriage vows pretty seriously. You try telling them they're unnatural. Our species will continue long into the future, with or without marriage.

Why talking about natural behaviour among humans since couples, marriage, family, etc... are cultural concepts?

Rushfan, in the sense that you're using the term "unnatural", I think you have a solid case.  However, according to your arguments, homosexuality is only "unnatural" if the point of human existence is pro-creation.  Of course, lots of people hold essentially that view, but I don't think it's necessarily true.  I don't think we have to remain like lower animals forever.  I think there comes a point when we can decide our own purpose.  Maybe we're already there.  We don't spend all of our time looking for food and watching out for predators.  We are capable of much higher achievements, incredibly more complex things.  We can almost instantly communicate with each other from across the world.  We can travel into outer space.  We have mapped the human genome.  We can observe subatomic particles and describe the shape of our galaxy.  Surely this separates in evolution's eyes from the animals. Is it also unnatural for a human to not grow his own food?  Is it unnatural for him to let his guard down around strangers, who could potentially be predators?  It's necessary for some people to pro-create (heterosexual couples), some people to grow food (farmers), and some people to protect us from enemies (government) for survival.  But everyone doesn't have to do these things for the race to survive.

Edited by Earendil - March 28 2013 at 19:38

CPicard wrote: Why talking about natural behaviour among humans since couples, marriage, family, etc... are cultural concepts?

Before there was "Adam" and "Eve" the first two humans were "Tom" and "Bill".  Well, "Tom" and "Bill" had sex every single night in every single way possible that two men could have sex.  Eventually, "Tom" and "Bill" grew old and died.  Nobody knows about "Tom" and "Bill" because nobody survived to tell their story.  "Adam" and "Eve" on the other hand, had children who begat children who begat children, etc.... so there were people around to tell their story and that is why we know about them.  (Before all of the atheists attack that comment, I am agnostic and don't necessarily believe that an "Adam" and "Eve" actually existed and that "Eve" was created from "Adam's" rib).   That is what I mean by Natural Selection and being "natural".  Again, obviously in today's day and age with billions of people, the idea of humans going extinct as a result of everyone becoming homosexual and stopping to have kids isn't realistic.  Blowing ourselves up to smithereens is a whole 'nother story.

rushfan4 wrote: CPicard wrote: Why talking about natural behaviour among humans since couples, marriage, family, etc... are cultural concepts? Before there was "Adam" and "Eve" the first two humans were "Tom" and "Bill".  Well, "Tom" and "Bill" had sex every single night in every single way possible that two men could have sex.  Eventually, "Tom" and "Bill" grew old and died.  Nobody knows about "Tom" and "Bill" because nobody survived to tell their story.  "Adam" and "Eve" on the other hand, had children who begat children who begat children, etc.... so there were people around to tell their story and that is why we know about them.  (Before all of the atheists attack that comment, I am agnostic and don't necessarily believe that an "Adam" and "Eve" actually existed and that "Eve" was created from "Adam's" rib).   That is what I mean by Natural Selection and being "natural".  Again, obviously in today's day and age with billions of people, the idea of humans going extinct as a result of everyone becoming homosexual and stopping to have kids isn't realistic.  Blowing ourselves up to smithereens is a whole 'nother story.

You missed the point.
The conversation is about the homosexual marriage - and you must have noticed that I only wrote "couples, marriage, family"... and NOT reproduction/breeding.
In a conversation about marriage (which is a union ruled by written or customs), we should avoid to talk about biology and natural mecanisms, which is far beyond the scope of the actual point of the debate or, at least, shouldn't be.

And your example is ethno-centric: the first humans were "N'trk" and "N'klt".

ExittheLemming wrote: rushfan4 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade.    Despite this, I am all in favor of a little thing that my favorite band sings about called Freewill, and peoples' right to "choose" who they marry or don't marry.  And if a child needs a home and there is an adult or two adults of the same sex that would like to take care of said child than that is what is important.  Everyone knows there are plenty of same sex parents that quite frankly should have those rights taken away from them and there are plenty of straight persons who really should be removed from the gene pool. Since when did the overriding aim of marriage become exclusively procreation? There are millions of (straight and fertile) couples out there who have precisely zero intention of ever producing kids but take their marriage vows pretty seriously. You try telling them they're unnatural. Our species will continue long into the future, with or without marriage. They are unnatural, but they have also made a choice that they are free to make.  I have chosen not to marry and have no kids, so that makes me unnatural, although that is only about half my fault as it takes two to tango and I just never found that suitable tango partner. You'll never find a tango partner on a Prog site matey

Ain't that the truth.  But hey, it worked for our old friends Micky and Raff.

rushfan4 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: You'll never find a tango partner on a Prog site matey Ain't that the truth.  But hey, it worked for our old friends Micky and Raff.

Ah, PA's power couple--  shouldn't they have a Hollywood acronym by now, like Mickiella or Raffamike ?

Raises the question whether wild animals can be unnatural. Homosexualiy exists almost everywhere in the animal world, and just because we have the power of reflection doesn't take away from the fact that we, not so long ago, were swinging from the trees as well.
Natural or it's socalled opposite, at least on a basic human level, will always be dictated by the individual and culture. What may seem natural to Bill, possibly feels absurd to Abdi.