Skip to main content

This letter-to-the-editor will never get published, but I thought I'd give it a go... (to the Columbus-Dispatch)

This letter-to-the-editor is in response to Tuesdays' letter, entitled, "Gay agenda pervades military, retailers" and some comments which followed. There was talk about religion, morality and how no study has shown any shred of evidence that homosexuality is at all genetic. Of course, that's not true - there are a growing number of scientists who believe that homosexuality is at least partially due to genetics, including geneticist Sven Bocklandt, who couldn't understand how anyone could believe that people actually choose to whom they're sexually attracted. He commented on how "virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity." 

I have noticed, like with the comments I read on Tuesday, a decent majority of those whom don't believe homosexuality is in any way genetic are quite religious. Now, I may not be a religious person, but do believe in the freedom of religion - that every person has the right to believe whatever he or she so desires. On the other hand, when it comes to extremely religious individuals and their clamoring that it's preposterous to believe homosexuality is at all genetic, I always want to ask them which scenario is less likely - that a man was born from the womb of a virgin and due to his perfection, was sent to die on a cross as a sacrifice to all of mankind (only to rise three days later), so that we may live eternally so long as we worship him OR that a minority of people are born slightly differently than most, in that they're sexually attracted to the same gender? Yeah, I know - that's a tough one. Think it over and get back to me...

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more