I'm sorry but that's just an incredibly stupid response
Chances of UKIP winning General Election?
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry but that's just an incredibly stupid response
That's what is up with this country at the moment. Discrimination is discrimination. End of. No if's no buts. Regardless of what it is we are discriminating against. I don't understand why we have such an obsession with colour.
Also I can't understand why we think it is acceptable to positively discriminate?
NVP(or anyone) is being a homo' a natural thing ? That's the question.
if its Natural then how can it be abhorrent, as its "for use of a better word" gods will.
or do we take the line that Homosexuals have something wrong with their personalities and should/can be treated the same way as infertility.
if its Natural then how can it be abhorrent, as its "for use of a better word" gods will.
or do we take the line that Homosexuals have something wrong with their personalities and should/can be treated the same way as infertility.
I'd consider sterility more disability lite, as it doesn't impact everyone negatively (some people choose not to have kids, so fidning out that they are sterile doesn't actually impact them in any way), as opposed to, say, blindness, every blind person is negatively impacted by that.
Some might argue that homosexuality is a disability if you want to have children, but there is nothing stopping people getting sperm donors or surrogates to get around the biological boundry. If you are gay, and don't want to have kids, it's only a disbility as far as having to deal with bigotted ****s.
I don't see why an opinion on homosexuality is required for this discussion, it will simply cause offence to some and potentially derail this thread - but I will humor you both for a second with my opinion, and that is all this is, my opinion.
Talking purely from a naturalistic viewpoint, Life is about procreation so that a species can survive. If a superior species is capable of such intelligent thought that it has determined the key to life is this most basic of natural instincts, to procreate, yet one member of the species decides against this as fluctuations in hormone levels make them behave differently to another member of the same species... is this natural or against nature? It may be against their chemical make-up, but it is also against Life itself - You tell me which is "more natural"?
Not everything is black and white.
Last edited:
. You said it was natural as buttercups in an orchard.Could you state why that would be a bad thing?, we spend less on the NHS & already get a service far superior to nations which spend a comparable amount.
Being homosexual only excludes you from creating a child with your same-sex partner, it does not actually stop you from creating a child.
As a superior species, we have also noted that the world is over-populated, so not propogating the species might actually ensure it's survival.
Me, I'm straight, but don't wish to ever have children. Does that make me 'against life', or someone that needs to be cured?
Isn't throwing money exactly what Labour did last time? It didn't solve the problem, it never does. The result was the shambolic PFI scheme, too much middle management and inefficient spending.
Throwing money at it correctly however would see great things. Just because Labour were hopeless are delivering an idea, doesn't make the idea a bad one.
Homosexuality is perfectly natural, to argue otherwise is "old fashioned" for want of a better phrase. We don't live in the early 20th century anymore. It's shameful that people today, so long since then, still take issue with it. Whoever a person decides to bed is none of your business! Also, homosexuality doesn't just occur in humans.
Just a thought, for all us straights, if in an alternate dimension, men reproduced with men, but you were only attracted to women. Would you be happy to accept "treatment" to make you attracted to men, in the name of procreation? Question mostly aimed at spankingtexan and Co. I mean, this is assuming you are not allowed to have children by any other means people can have them like adoption and surrogacy.
Just a thought, for all us straights, if in an alternate dimension, men reproduced with men, but you were only attracted to women. Would you be happy to accept "treatment" to make you attracted to men, in the name of procreation? Question mostly aimed at spankingtexan and Co. I mean, this is assuming you are not allowed to have children by any other means people can have them like adoption and surrogacy.
Because it would be wasted by higher ups by hiring more middle-management and failed projects (Billions wasted on a scarped IT system anyone?)
Extra money in itself is fine but it would have to be tightly micro-managed to an inch of it's life and the track record of that has been abysmal
Agreed, but trusting Labour with the keys of economy again? Trollalololololol!!!!
Last edited:
Everything is natural, the opposite of natural is supernatural & gay people are not mythological creatures.
The 'nature' argument is based off a flawed & simplistic view on social human evolution.
Certain traits can be positive for the collective, I'll give you an example - if a species had a mutation which put a small percentage of the population outside of the standard competition dynamic but as a result of this were better able to assist in the rearing & upbringing of children.
Those genes would be passed on via successive generations through there siblings - put short, person A will have the genetic propensity for homosexuality which over enough time is beneficial due to the positive social influence of having siblings not competing for mating opportunities.
This gene would be passed on when it's likely hood would reach an equilibrium - in that it's not so high it stops the gene from being passed on all together, but often enough to provide a reliable advantage for reproduction.
You can't look at individual reproductive success to determine if something is 'against nature', which is also a stupid phrase to use because nature has no purpose.
Reproduction is a means for a species to continue, it's not a purpose - that's your subjective evaluation & an attempt of applying meaning to something which objectively has none. Regardless of either of these facts it's also as 'natural' as anything can be & see in other animal species.
Flawed argument, I could disregard any suggestion on anything by implying it's only outcome would be void of any benefits & only include the potential negatives.
Looking at the NHS objectively it's already incredibly efficient so I see no real reason to disregard any potential for increased funding.
You mean residing over one of the strongest periods of growth until the global financial crisis?.
Have you ever even looked at our historic growth & debt as a percentage of GDP statistics or are you just repeating something you read in a tabloid?.
Last edited:
I was going to add spending it wisely would be more prudent but yes throwing money correctly would also be a good thing. Do you trust a Labour Government headed by the very same people behind the scenes of the previous 13 years to do this? I certainly do not. In fact I don't trust any UK politician or Government to do this effectively. They should build an IT system to make it all better......
Whoops, I referring to the concept of more money to the NHS specifically, Labour can do one as far as I am concerned!
You are right, I guess I am mirroring religion here by imposing my belief that "the purpose of life is to procreate" on this situation. I don't feel this debate is warranted for this thread however, so I'm going to back away as to avoid any offence.
- Status