Originally Posted by
Gobyguy9686
well i see were u all are coming from but IMO and from scientific reaserch by others the energy issue is not that big of a deal considering that in france they are testing a reactor that puts out enough energy to fuel all of france... i forget the name but it is hydrogen fusion like the sun.... and the enviroment if you really think about it isnt that bad yes we can shape up a little bit but overall we are in pretty good shape... and the last subject(plz do not get offended) gay marriage in my opinion is wrong the whole point of marriage is to love yes but it is also a moral way to continue the human race and there is no benefite to sociatey from a gay marraige, i think they can be partners thats fine but marriage is somethin completely diffrent.... didnt mean to offened if i did srry
Well, I realize not everyone buys the science (though it is as close to universally agreed upon as you can get (by those not being paid to dissent, that is)), but the impact of a few degrees is likely to impact the planet in incredibly significant ways. I'm not sure what you're saying about france (something along the lines of because France is taking environmental responsibility that we don't have to?).
Scientific research is a sad topic these days. NIH funding is getting slashed at alarming rates. We've always been at the forefront of medical research, but that is changing due to funding shrinkage and the ban on ethical stem cell research.
To an extent, I agree with you on gay marriage. While I completely support 100% equality in terms of recognition of committed couples, heterosexual or homosexual, I believe since marriage is ordained by religious institutions that the government has no say in the matter. It is not the government's job to protect the "sanctity of marriage". A law designating marriage as between a man and a woman is unethical, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. The only basis for saying that a homosexual marriage would be morally wrong is to consult religious texts that deem it as such. An argument against the morality of homosexuality falls flat on its face unless you quote said texts, so really, how is it that such an amendment is even under consideration in a country that is supposedly free and founded on freedom of religion? I'm still looking for a reasonable answer to that one.