I don't hate homosexuals. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! o rly? The absurdity of that statement tickled my funny bone and made me smile. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What if they're fine with that? Oh boy. I see that Playing God Argument® floating around again. Let go of that, please.
Should there be cures at all? Should we cure pedophilia? You can make the case that homosexuality need not be cured, but OBVIOUSLY some forms of sexuality SHOULD be cured. This is the whole point of curing anything. Seriously, we don't need any more pedophiles. Would you rather homosexual babies be aborted? Some mothers might choose to abort their baby when they discover it's homosexual, is this better? Why do you worry that there will be no homosexuals? Do homosexuals worry about this? Yes some people who are homosexual would choose to remain homosexual, but no one would choose to be homosexual. When a mother has an abortion, does anyone besides that mother have a say? Would you prefer homosexuals get aborted? What do you prefer, abortion or cures? Don't you realize that if this cure is not made, these parents could decide to just abort the fetus and not give birth to a homosexual at all? I'm not uncomfortable. Parents always choose these things, this is why parents choose who to mate with in the first place. Why not let parents continue? If you support abortion, how can you not support this? Yes and thats good. A parent should not be forced to raise a sort of child they do not want to raise, or to have a sort of child they do not want to have, this is why abortion is legal. I'm not saying I'm agreeing with having abortions, but the choice exists for a reason. Yes and Yes. When given the option to cure or abort, wouldnt you think that curing is better than aborting? If you think homosexuality is not a disease, what about race? I mean seriously, if people are willing to have abortions over it and treat it like a disease, like down-syndrome and other diseases, it's not going ot matter what you decide to call it. It is what it is. Don't you get it. By letting parents decide you ARE letting society decide. Whats wrong with letting the people decide what race, what sexuality, what "normal" is? I mean if you don't, then abortions will continue to increase as parents decide by simply aborting children they don't want. Which do you prefer, cures or abortions? Cures or abortion, pick. Because it's not like Parents love their children currently, parents don't even love children who arent homosexual and you are expecting parents to have homosexual children? Yeah some parents will be like that and love their children no matter what, but the average parent, the average parent might decide its better to have an abortion than to give birth to a homosexual, are you saying abortion is better than curing the child?! My proposal is the most logical conclusion of abortion. If you are pro choice, you are pro choice. You cannot be both pro choice and pro life. If you are pro life, and against abortion, and against genetic engineering, I can respect this position because it's consistant. However, if you are FOR abortion, but you are against other forms of reproductive choice, then what exactly are you for? killing babies? I think having options like the cure for homosexuality and other gene profiles that society treats as a disease, would give parents better options than simply having abortions. The goal should be to reduce abortions to the minimum possible level, and cures would do this, while your idea of letting people as a fetus be discovered as homosexual, would lead to homosexual fetuses being aborted. Look at China, where female infants are aborted simply for being the wrong gender. Don't you think the same sorta thing can happen here? Do you want homosexuals to simply be aborted? You fail to give ANY ideas, you only complain about the article, or about my ideas, but offer no ideas of your own. So okay, you are against genetic engineering, are you also against abortion? Are you consistant? If you are against these things, do you support adoption? Should parents have the right to disown their homosexual babies and give them up for adoption and allow homosexual couples to raise them? Give some alternatives.
The playing God arguement is the weakest possible arguement. No one claims that arguement when we discuss anything else. I mean if it's abortion, where are these playing God people when that's being discussed? If it's weapons being made, like the gun, where are the playing God people when this is happening? The playing God people only seem to appear, when new choices are offered to humanity that THEY don't like. You don't like genetic engineering? You are against stem cell research? You think we are playing God for going to the moon? Maybe we are Gods actors, what do you say to this? Thats at least how I view it. I don't see how we can even think about these things if God did not want us to play the role. God does not control evolution, WE DO. We always did, and because we always knew we always did, thats why our brains evolved so much faster than the other animals. These playing God people want us to be dumb like farm animals. Here is the question though, even if homosexuality is not a sin, and is not bad or harmful, you have to recognize that the technology itself, the genetic engineering technology itself is worth developing, and the homosexuality cure is the starting point to many other cures. It's like with stem cell research, people don't want us o start cloning, because they have these ridiculous arguements about us playing God, they do not realize that if we do not develop this technology, we will be playing dead soon enough, because stem cell research would give us so much control over our bodies that we'd all have perfect health if we can afford it. How can this be wrong or bad? I think we need to keep going because if we don't, some other country or group of people will, if you think you can just, let go of technology, you are wrong. Genetic engineering, is something we will have to accept, it's already here, cloning is here, stem cell research is here, gene therapy is here, and no amount of effort will be able ot stop it. At best, if you fight it, it will be developed as weapons and in secret with no consumer purposes at all, and I don't see how this would be better.
yes some people are selfish and greedy, but also their are people who are selfless and charitable. if all people are money grabbing, tight fisted, bastards then why do we here in England have the NHS? why did David Lloyd George introduce welfare and sick pay? because certaily if he was like Americans and expected people to pay for their own health he would surly make more money and if people were payed for the work they did only, the the work force would be more efficient but sick and unhappy.
Yeah, two, maybe three, in the whole fuckin' world? Don't know who he is, but my guess is that he was/is rich and doesn't have a care in the world. If he ain't selfish and greedy, then how did he get to be rich? Also, just to prove a point, I'll bet he didn't use his own money in that bullshit cause of "welfare and sick pay", did he? Nope, he wanted to use other people's money to help those people! See? Greedy and selfish ....and if what I said is true, then he's also like everyone else ...a fuckin' hippo-critter! Baron Max
david lloyd goerge was the son of a miner who got into politics to help people of low wage, so no he wasnt rich, very few british polititions are "rich" they aint poor but yano. indeed he didnt use his own money he used tax payers, but he put it to better use than going to war (thats a lie he was the prime minister at the start of WWI), he spent it on gettin children compulsary schooling, free school dinners ,albeit at the discretion of the councils. and i must say, you have an extremely warped view of the world, i can see you in a few years if not already a recluse muttering slurs at minoritys and taking great pleasure in bitching about any subject available to you.
Yep! Just like all politicians ....quick to use money that ain't theirs to do the "good" of the world! And you claim that he ain't selfish and greedy like the rest of the human-fuckin'-race?! Baron Max
So hes using the middle class to help the poor. The point is, while it might be more efficient to take care of your workforce, and while it might be rational to do so, do not assume it is done out of charity. Yes some people arent selfish, those people are the ones who get to suffer in poverty while they try helping everyone else. It's very difficult to become rich without being selfish, or corrupted in the process. The second thing you must realize is, while there are altruistic people in the world, when I discuss people I'm talking about the average person. The average person is just like the person described by Thomas Hobbes.
Actually, politicians are entrusted to distribute public funds by the people who elect them. They run on a platform and specifically state to what uses taxation money will be put. If you don't agree with the proposed distribution of funds, elect somebody else. It's your fault.
There probably is a gene for religious extremism. Now if we only identify religious fundamentalist behavior in sheep and learn how to breed that out of them..........!
