Skip to main content

What's more likely?

So, I read a Columbus-Dispatch letter-to-the-editor today which revolved around gay rights and how it sickened her it was becoming normal for people to accept homosexuality. There have been 36+ comments made in response to the article. A majority of posters disagreed with the author. There were a few, however, who brought religion into the discussion and made claims (with no sources to back them up) that homosexuality cannot be in any way genetic, that it's an abomination in the eyes of God and that the increase of gay rights was slowly destroying the moral compass of our society. After I provided links to studies which showed that there's an increasing belief by scientists that homosexuality is at least partially due to genetics, one individual in particular dismissed the studies, continuing to clamor that there's been no proof of the orientation being due to genetics.

I just had to laugh. Now, I believe in freedom of religion. I'm not a religious person, but a person should have the freedom to believe whatever he or she desires. However, I wanted to ask that poster something like this, "With all due respect, sir, what is less likely? ...that an invisible man created the world, and that his son (kind of, but not really) 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, 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?" If he said the former was more likely than the latter, I'd probably give myself such a vicious facepalm, it'd result in a concussion.

Comments

  1. Thanks again for your comment. I'm both fascinated with yet quite flustered by the politically-outspoken churches in this country. Abortion and gay marriage are never specifically mentioned in The Bible. The passages referring to homosexuality were commonly seen as strong points to it being an abomination. However, that tone has shifted some in recent years, as the sin of Sodom isn't homosexuality in a growing number of scholars' minds, but inhospitality. So, it really befuddles me why some churches have felt the need to be so outspoken on these two issues and make a large quantity of people feel that if they support a candidate who approves of one or both of them, they'd be voting for Satan. Largely due to this, the Republican Party has dominated with the Evangelicals in recent elections. Aren't these people preaching about such issues sinning by claiming to be speaking for God? It depresses me that the Republican Party has convinced so many that they're the party of God/morals/family values and the Democratic Party is the party of Satan/evil. Jesus doesn't ever speak of abortion or gay marriage. He speaks of loving all and providing for "the least of us". The GOP has increasingly been representative of only the top 1-2% and have seemed to spit upon those in the lower (and even middle at times) class. Yet, in many's minds, they're the party of God. ::scratches head::

    ReplyDelete

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...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

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 ...