The WORST bomb in the world

  • Thread starter Thread starter keram
  • 57 comments
  • 1,256 views
lol, well, i thought, such a prospect is outrageous, you are right, if i were a soldier in an army, knowing a bomb could be dropped on me that would ruin my 'you know...' then i would say, 'screw this' let em take whatever resource or crap they want
But, i feel its a nasty form of blackmail, very very nasty, perhaps could be even classed as a form of potential, terror weapon. But, aren't there standards of dignity in the world today?
...Guess not, lol, but on a serious note however, it is sad, very incredibly sad.
 
lol, well, i thought, such a prospect is outrageous, you are right, if i were a soldier in an army, knowing a bomb could be dropped on me that would ruin my 'you know...' then i would say, 'screw this' let em take whatever resource or crap they want
But, i feel its a nasty form of blackmail, very very nasty, perhaps could be even classed as a form of potential, terror weapon. But, aren't there standards of dignity in the world today?
...Guess not, lol, but on a serious note however, it is sad, very incredibly sad.
 
This bomb not only won't work, it can't work. Homosexuality is a life choice, not a disease, as our military seems to think...
 
Homosexuality is a biological chemical trait. You don't choose to be gay. So theorhetically, if they could isolate that gene, it may be possible. Although blatently stupid, immoral, and unethical to try and changes one's sexual orientation.
 
PublicSecrecy
Homosexuality is a biological chemical trait. You don't choose to be gay. So theorhetically, if they could isolate that gene, it may be possible. Although blatently stupid, immoral, and unethical to try and changes one's sexual orientation.
No. You are wrong. There is no gay gene. There are gay jeans, but that's another story!
 
Ten does your family have any other homosexual members, or a homosexual great grandfather great aunt or something like that? If he says yes, then that's proof enough for me that it's genetic and not a choice.
 
PublicSecrecy
Ten does your family have any other homosexual members, or a homosexual great grandfather great aunt or something like that? If he says yes, then that's proof enough for me that it's genetic and not a choice.
If he was around any homosexual people a lot, he would have a greater chance of becoming homosexual himself.
 
Ever heard of someones environment affecting how they turn out in life?
 
A child raised in a gay house surrounded with gay people has a good chance of being gay. Even if he /she is not related to any gay people. Hormones have nothing to do with it.
 
Yup. The child sees the gay behavior and mimics it. This is widely known to be true.
 
"By looking at the family trees of gay males it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual." - 1993, Dean Hamer, National Cancer Institute
 
Hamer Hammered by New Scientific Study, FRC Says
"Science Confirms What I've Seen in My Own Life as Well as in the Lives of Thousands of Others Who Have Left the Homosexual Lifestyle," Cantu Says

WASHINGTON, April 22 /PRNewswire/ -- " Scientists are finally telling us what we've always known. There is absolutely no scientific proof of a 'gay gene,'" said Family Research Council Policy Analyst Yvette Cantu Thursday.

A study conducted in 1993 by openly "gay" activist and researcher Dr. Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute examined the X chromosomes of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. The study, which appeared in the March 1993 issue of the journal Science, found that 33 of the pairs of brothers had genetic markers for male homosexuality.

A new study attempting to replicate Hamer's was released today by the same Science magazine, discrediting the 1993 study. The study conducted by scientists from the Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences at the University of Western Ontario and the Department of Genetics at Stanford Medical School concluded that "data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation."

The Boston Globe reported in February that the media-ballyhooed "gay gene" theory was already in trouble. The Globe article featured the findings of Dr. Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at Boston University's School of Medicine, whose twin studies showed "that sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."

"These findings confirm what I've seen in my own life as well as in the lives of thousands and thousands of people who have left the lifestyle," said Cantu. "I am living proof that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Hamer himself has said that lesbianism is 'culturally transmitted, not inherited ... It's more environmental than genetic, more nurture than nature.' Will these recent studies force Hamer to concede that male homosexuality is also not a matter of genetics but of environment?

"This new study reveals that Hamer's activism got in the way of his ability to remain unbiased about his research," said Cantu. " 'Gay' activists have used Hamer's research to promote everything from 'gay' marriage to 'hate crimes' legislation. However, Science's study further undermines any attempt to change public policy in his name."

SOURCE: Family Research Council
 
PublicSecrecy
That hardly proves anything, and certainly nothing from a scientific srandpoint.
It proves Hamer's 1993 research wrong, though.

Homosexuality is not biologically determined - latest research
By David van Gend - posted Tuesday, June 08, 2004 Sign Up for free e-mail updates!Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

The Titanic of Gay Rights, leaving all in its wake, is about to founder on a large and immovable fact.

My concern is not for the glamorous first-class passengers - the prominent doctors and judges - or for the Mardi Gras exhibitionists leering and lurching across the deck - but for the unknown homosexuals down in their lonely cabins feeling sick.

These are the ones who want to stop the ship and get off. The homosexuals who do not want to be homosexual but who are told that change is impossible, and that any talk of change is disloyal to the Gay crew, even mutinous.

The iceberg of clinical fact looming up in the dark is this: that homosexuals who want to become heterosexual can and do change, as authoritative medical research has now demonstrated. Given the will, and skilled therapy, there can be an end to the nightmare of same-sex attraction. That is the best news for our heartsick friends down below deck, but it is bad news for the complacent triumphalists of the Gay Titanic.

Bad news for their tall tale that being gay is like being black, an immutable inborn identity. Bad news, in the debate on gay marriage, for their false analogies with apartheid and Aborigines, since blacks cannot stop being blacks, but gays can stop being gay.
OXFAM Earthquake Tsunami Emergency Appeal - DONATE NOW

Homosexuality emerges in its truer light, not as a minority "genetic identity" but as a complex conditioned behaviour, which can and does change.

As to the exact causes of homosexuality, the medical jury is still out. But the baseless claim, promoted by Justice Michael Kirby and others, that gays are just born that way, is given no support by the American Psychiatric Association. Their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (2000) sums it up: "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality".

As to the ability for homosexuals to change, late last year a remarkable research paper was published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour (October 2003) by one of America's senior psychiatrists, Dr Robert Spitzer. Significantly, this was the same Spitzer whose reforming zeal helped delete homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's manual of mental disorders back in 1973. Now he has published a detailed review of "200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual orientation". He writes of his research: "Although initially sceptical, in the course of the study, the author became convinced of the possibility of change in some gay men and lesbians."

In his structured analysis of homosexuals who claimed to have changed their orientation through "reparative therapy", he concluded that the therapy had been genuinely effective: that "almost all of the participants reported substantial changes in the core aspects of sexual orientation, not merely overt behaviour". Against critics who say that attempts to change sexual orientation can cause emotional harm to homosexuals, he notes: "For the participants in our study, there was no evidence of harm".

So our seasick travellers down below in the Titanic can take heart: the desire to shake off sexual disorientation can be, in this eminent and gay-friendly doctor's opinion, "a rational, self-directed goal", and for some it can be successful. The enforcers amongst the ship's crew who accuse you of desertion, of "irrational internalised homophobia", are wrong.

To our shame, some of these enforcers are health professionals. To them Spitzer says: "Mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has as its goal a change in sexual orientation. Many patients can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."

Spitzer, once a medical darling of the Gay Rights movement, may now have to walk the plank, because his stubborn telling of the clinical truth has political implications.

The success of Gay activism has been due to portraying Gays as a persecuted minority group, identifying with historically persecuted minorities like blacks, women, Jews. This illusion cannot survive Spitzer's findings, that being Gay is a treatable psychological condition like any other, not an inborn identity.

In the current political debate about same-sex marriage, all talk is of persecuted minorities and human rights, while Spitzer's truth of a treatable condition is nowhere to be heard. Gay activist Rodney Croome thinks back to the Aborigines and accuses the Prime Minister, who opposes same-sex marriage, of denying gays "the full humanity of a disadvantaged group".

In The Australian, Former AMA President Dr Kerryn Phelps likewise accused the Prime Minister of "apartheid" against the gay "minority" in denying them marriage rights. But turning from that bogus racial minority model to Spitzer's therapeutic model, we see that gays can in fact marry, and in Spitzer's study many were married - but first they had to become biologically marriageable by successfully reorientating from homosexual to heterosexual.

The titanic illusion of homosexuality as a fixed inborn identity will take time to sink, but Spitzer's therapeutic iceberg will be more liberating than destructive. Below decks are the passengers I care about, and they need to know that it is OK to want to escape the suffering of same-sex attraction, and possible to do so. And our health professionals, who alone can man the life rafts, owe them a duty of care in aiding that escape.
 
PublicSecrecy
That hardly proves anything, and certainly nothing from a scientific srandpoint.

Hahahaha.

The Globe article featured the findings of Dr. Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at Boston University's School of Medicine, whose twin studies showed "that sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."

That's as much proof as your quote was. It's pretty obvious you're just trying to bash America some more, so go ahead.
 
You know what is funnier? The only other "news organizations" reporting this are Morons.org, 365gay.com, and Al-Jazeera.

*ahem*

The Looney Left really is looney.
 
PublicSecrecy
I'm more surprised they didn't actually drop one, knowing the U.S.

There's one, anyway. I know you "meant the US Government" but this mistake definitely gives some insight into where your true biases lie.
 
I said the US. Not the people of the US. The US stand for United states, meaning the countyr as a whole, which means the representatives of those states, which means the government. Ha.
 
Back