yes. having gone to hampshire, i have heard quite a bit against monogamy, but i still hold true to it. oh, we're naturally supposed to move on every seven years, it's unnatural, there's no reason to be unable to love more than one person at a time. but to be honest, i have only ever heard of one polyamorous couple that has survived for an extended period of time. i also have heard of many monogamous couples who have lived long, happy lives together. whether it is the culture i was raised in or not, i think that monogamy is natural; it is a commitment to one person, saying that they are important enough in your life to stay with them. it says to them that you don't need anyone else to be happy, which to me is very important. of course, the rebuttal would be that equating sex with happiness and fidelity with love is ridiculous, that the two are separate things. but i disagree. to me, at least, sex is more than the physical, and it is highly emotional. so for me, telling me that i'm not enough sexually is like saying that i'm not enough emotionally, either, and that you cannot "settle" for me, or be satisfied with me. so yes, i believe in monogamy. it is how we express that we are happy with each other in a sexual, romantic relationship.

Of course it's dangerous. It's a huge advance in medical treatment. Does that mean it's bad? No. I'd say it's better than a lot of other dangerous medical procedures we use, such as chemotherapy. There's a lot of issues with it right now, issues that need to be addressed before it can be put into use, but it's a branch of knowledge that it really wouldn't pay to ignore. If you're one of those people who wants to live a healthy life without a decline into feeblemindedness and physical weakness, then stem cells could be the way to go. Of course treating your body properly is the best way to survive life, but eventually your body will decline. When your kidney fails, or your heart starts dying, or one of your lungs is consumed by cancer, it would be so much healthier if you could get a new one grown to replace it, wouldn't it? So yes, I think the government should fund stem cell research -- if all the kinks could get worked out, it would increase QOL for anyone who could afford it immensely. Would it be expensive? That depends on how readily stem cells are available, which is a political issue pertaining to the harvesting of unused embryos, which is a completely different discussion. The main point is that yes, it should be funded by the government. There are plenty of other ways to get stem cells, though they may have a smaller yield for more money.

I would pay for college for myself and pay off my parents' debt. They are my financial stability, so I'd be basically investing in my own future. And if I could finish college without any debt, my ability to stay in the middle class and make a good life for myself is bettered considerably. Of course, if there was any left over [which there wouldn't be, but let's pretend.] I would of course buy myself a car or a house or lots of food or something.