It isn’t bad enough that these people want to dictate to people how they should live their lives. Now they want all research that they deem unworthy (basically AIDS researchand anything related to sexuality) to be stopped. Are they that afraid that science might discover a cure to this disease? Are they that afraid that science might someday determine that a person doesn’t choose to be gay? Can’t these people just mind their own business and not try to dictate how scientific research should be conducted or what should be studied? What are their scientific credentials? Well, lets see what the director of this group has to say about their credentials"
Ah, so you have the truth and nobody else does. How arrogant can you be.
She goes on to explain the reasoning behind this campaign…
Uh, how’s about we try to find a cure. Wouldn’t that be just a little more effective than telling people not to fuck anymore.
We should stop researching cures for old age ailments too… after all grandpa and grandma will die anyway won’t they ? Genetic defects ? God’s will. Leukemia ? Fate… Divorce ? Devil’s work.
I agree totally with the OP. These people want everyone acting in the same morality they practice. Never mind endangered young teens who don’t get adequate sex-ed because it offends religious sensibilities to teach that in school.
The political reality to this thing is pretty simple and pretty stark.
At present the national government is in the hands of a possibly temporary coalition of fiscal conservatives (Country Club Republicans) and social conservatives (Evangelical Republicans). Neither can gain their ends without the support of the other. Some might suggest that all the social conservatives are going to gain is lip service, a bully pulpit and the few crumbs that the coalition can throw them without infuriating the Country Club types. The Country Club Republicans are perfectly happy for their daughters to abort unwanted children, to play an occasional game of Black Jack at a licensed casino, and to watch the occasional dirty movie. Thus it serves the Country Club types’s interests to tolerate some bitching and moaning about AIDS research, prohibit the occasional and not terribly important abortion procedure, decry the lack of mandatory worship services in public schools and generally point with dismay at the general decline in public morals and the spread of tolerance of what was once generally regarded as deviant behavior.
Without the Evangelical Republicans the Country Club Republicans can not get the tax reductions, weakened regulation of business and industry, crippled government and autocratic police powers they want. The real question is how long the Country Club Republicans will put up with the sometimes goofy social agenda of the Evangelicals and how long will it take the Evangelicals to figure out that they are not making significant progress toward their social goals.
you’re acting as if this is an unusual stance. This is just part of the ‘you made your bed now lie in it’ continuum, that has other strands as well, such as:
Organ transplants should include some level of ‘why do they need an organ’, so that the liver goes to some one who didn’t choose to burn out their own due to decades of abuse (don’t think it doesn’t happen? I recall lots of editorializing about David Crosby, Larry Hagman etc. when they were on the transplant lists).
Anything over ‘three hots and a cot’ treatment for prisoners.
Persons recieving public assistance buying things the observer thinks they don’t need.
No, not unusual, just repulsive. If these people had their way, we wouldn’t have any need for scientists, with all of their silly stem cell and AIDS research and such. Who needs cures, especially when you are just trying to cure people who wouldn’t be in their current situation if they had only read the bible more. There is nothing science can do that faith can’t do better.
Well, unless you are talking about removing feeding tubes for someone who is pretty much dead anyway. You can’t remove that science, that would be a sin. Isn’t it interesting how they pick and choose.
music - I submit to you that there is an alarming consistency. It’s ok to explore AIDS research for cure, since there are some “Innocents” who’ve gotten it. It’s not OK to research AIDS spreading 'cause one has a choice about sex, IV drug use (and if those pesky drug users and fornicators would simply stop having sex/giving blood/giving birth to innocents, then by golly, we’d be able to contain the disease to those whose lifestyles made them suseptical)
the woman in FL, the parents (IIRC) are claiming that she fell into the coma either 'cause her bad bad husband tried to kill her by choking her, or bad luck heart attack. They’ve (IIRC) rejected the possability that her heart attack was caused by an eating disorder 'cause that would make her be a party to her state**
**(I am not claiming that this is the parents position, that an eating disorder is her own fault, but that it would be a consistent position for those who seem to believe that drug addiction is a person’s fault, and the resulting problems therefore are as well).
I agree that it’s an abhorant position, but take note, that there’s a lot of room on that whole “make your bed and lie in it” place.
Assuming that the excerpts provided at http://www.traditionalvalues.org are actual studies being funded by the NIH, I think they have a valid point on this one. The sexual habits of truckers and gay Mexican immigrants doesn’t strike me as a matter of national importance. The other ‘studies’ listed seem equally pointless.
These may (or may not) be interesting things to study from an academic point of view, but don’t seem to be matters that public funds should be used to research. After all, I would love to be the researcher working on, “Study of genital arousal of lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual women as they view pornographic videos”, but getting the gov’t to pay for that study? Ridiculous.
You don’t think so? The truckers are, from what I’ve read, notorious disease vectors. The gay Mexicans have a cultural bias to contend with. They are extremely reluctant to admit to being gay, and equally reluctant to take steps to reduce HIV transmission. In my opinion, yes, both issues have national importance.
See the title? “A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal”. Sounds a bit different when you call it “Study of genital arousal of lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual women as they view pornographic videos”, and omit any background information.
Your government funds all sorts of stuff you probably wouldn’t understand simply from the titles, and probably wouldn’t see any use for without having it explained. They spend shitloads studying the sexual behaviour of insects, for example.