I see your sarcasm meter is broken too.
Oh, you are saying things you do not mean! How very clever. (Look now I am doing it too!)
That already happened. It was called the AIDS epidemic. The scientific response to which was the identification of the virus responsible, tracking down lines of transmission, and developing drugs to treat it, such that today, an AIDS diagnosis is no longer a death sentence.
The Christian response? Lying about effective prevention and saying we deserved it.
If this whole thread is you saying things you do not mean, you’d be a better person. An awful troll, but still a better person than made out by what you have actually said.
Certainly some religious people said terrible things. So did nonreligious people, such as Ronald Reagan. In the same way, some religious people did important work to help. So did some secular people.
Few of us did enough. Some of us feel shame. Others do not.
Even if we grant this, religion is the one saying having gay children is bad in the first place. In a purely scientific world, where religion holds no sway and we genetically engineer every aspect of every baby including their sexual orientation*, what makes you think all parents would choose to have straight kids? Without religious people to judge my kids and make their life harder, there’s literally no reason to assume that the “straight” option would be the most desirable. Maybe science will allow us to produce a whole generation of bi kids.
*(which assumes orientation is entirely genetically determined, and there’s no prenatal hormonal influence or any other aspect to it than genetic, which is likely an oversimplification, but whatever)
Can you expand on this?
You cannot be this dense.
Ok, I get it, this is performance art
I think now the system that is Paul_was_in_Saudi has finally totally snapped.
I am sure some religious person has said such a thing. At least in the modern Christian faith, all lives are considered sacred. (This is the basis of the anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti mercy-killing stances.) Science is not so encumbered. Stalin, or Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot judged the value of a life on a more mercurial basis. Which will most benefit society? Which will produce more?
Citation needed.
Come on, we have been writing for over a day. Surely you can provide examples to support your claim.
In what possible sense was Ronald Reagan a “nonreligious person?” His in action on the AIDS epidemic grew directly from his catering to far right Christians.
Hmmmm. Maybe you can be this dense. At least you’ve change my mind about one thing.
Can you support this at all, or is it simply faith for you?
Because it really does not connect to reality.
Now more mods have joined in his oppression.
He really is a prophet.
My post is oppression? Wow the standards for oppression are pretty low.