No in a previous post you stated I hate them, I responded and told you I didn't hate them that I had some business practices I don't like.:hmm: So maybe you just strongly dislike them? You are quibbling over a word.
What is your point? I think civil unions are silly idea for precisely that reason.The word "Marriage" ring a bell to you?
You claimed not to hate them, but then made multiple posts about how you dislike them...No in a previous post you stated I hate them, I responded and told you I didn't hate them that I had some business practices I don't like.
So you knew my position and wanted to put words in my mouth as its the only way you know how to debate a point.
Seems like GMO has benefits to society other than enriching Monsanto.At the core of the beliefs of a lot of the anti-GMO people I know is that they believe that genetically modifying food is "unnatural". The thing is, all farming is unnatural. Every bit of land that is a farm now would not be a farm if there were not humans on it. A farm is about as natural as a city block. If you really want to preserve nature, the best way is to minimize our footprint by a combination of increasing farm yields, minimizing outside pesticide exposure, and maximizing the nutritional content (i.e. calorie, vitamin and protein content) of crops.
I'm not here as a Monsanto apologist: some of what they do works towards these goals, some doesn't. They respond to what the market demands of them. Instead of obsessing over a few implementations of genetic technology, I'd suggest looking at that broader possibilities that are currently being shot down by the anti-GMO crowd.
45 years ago, there was widespread prediction of massive famine that would kill off a billion or more people. It likely would have happened, too, had Norman Borlaug not almost single-handledly introduced modern farming to the developing world. For all of our first-world complaints about the damage of pesticides, they have saved the lives of over a billion people. He was able to introduce these methods largely free from government interference or red tape in a way that would not now be possible.
Now, of course, we are starting to run up against the limit of these farming methods. Genetic engineering provides a way to surpass these limits in important ways. Some examples:
Golden Rice that contains high quantities of beta-carotene.
Cassava with higher quantities of protein.
Plants that accumulate arsenic from the soil, cleaning it. Alternatively, rice that doesn't accumulate arsenic from the soil, so you can grow it in bad areas.
All of these are ideas that don't come from Monsanto, but because of the anti-GMO opposition, they face a lot of resistance in their implementation. With all the red tape that people have to go through now, the only people with the resources to create and distribute these plants are the huge companies, creating the self-fulfilling prophecy that only big, evil companies do this.
I don't think gay relationships should be given government recognition. Whether its called marriage, civil unions, government-recognized-sex-partners, etc.My point is you squabble of the word 'marriage' for gays. I didnt think my point would need explaining. But for you i guess it does.
I could easily say the same of hetro relationships. But in this country they need to be treated equally either with gov recognition or without gov recognition. And currently most favor gov recognition so that is the one we will go with for both.I don't think gay relationships should be given government recognition. Whether its called marriage, civil unions, government-recognized-sex-partners, etc.