[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Believe what you want. Read my posts here and on SMP and find anything that is supportive of religion or the religious. I am as hard an atheist as there is. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, you didn't make the posts I thought you made.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Coherent enough for anyone with reading comprehension abilities. Your conclusion that the nuclear family is not "natural" is not supportable, nor is the opposite conclusion. Given the fact that nature has done a pretty good job for herself, and that the nuclear family has proven to be the most productive and stable, I tend to lean toward it being natural. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Nature doesn't do a "pretty good job." Nature doesn't do anything. And there is plenty of support that human beings didn't evolve to live in nuclear families, or even to be monogamous. This ranges from biological traits (gender dimorphism) to behavior/paternity studies to anthropology. I don't know what you mean when you say that the nuclear family is stable and productive - can you back that up?

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">I don't know what path you are using to get there. Someone said there is "no such thing as natural". OI responded that in the context of this tread of course there is such a thing as "natural" since we are talking about human behavior which is governed by nature, including evolution. You are so off base in what youre reading into my statements you must be inventing things to be disagreeable. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is not "governed by nature." Evolution is simply a process that occurs in nature. And you haven't answered my questions - what do you mean by "natural," in the context of this thread?