Read more!

I'm sure by now you've heard of Obama's choice for Rick Warren to give the invocation at his shindig on Jan 20th.(1)I'm really not quite sure how I feel about this yet. In one sense, I'm elated that Obama would choose such a man, it shows that Obama realizes he can't get anywhere without the evangelical community completely behind him... However, on the other hand, it's really a funky choice, especially considering the polar opposite views of Obama and Warren on many issues. The ones that really surface are abortion and homosexual marriage. With the passing of Prop 8 in California, (one of the very few things that California has actually done right), and with Obama and Warren taking completely different sides of that issue, Obama is hailed as the national hero, and Warren is painted as a "homophobe". In his interview with Ann Curry, when she asked him if he would change his position if there was evidence found that homosexuality was "normal", he gave one of the greatest one-liners ever, "I’m naturally incline to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean its the right thing to do" (2) He obviously understands this issue, and Obama is clearly in the dark. It's like seeing Santa Clause and Jack the Ripper facing off over whether kids should be killed or not... I mean, this is a clear-cut issue in society... I really don't see how people could think that homosexuality is "normal"... I mean, the plumbing just doesn't work. I know that and I'm not even married! Sheesh, peoples, this ain't rocket surgery! Anyway....

Oh yeah, back to the topic at hand.... Obama's having this ginormous celebration for winning the election... I commend him for that, I think it's his right. He won fair and square, and how he has the right to celebrate. I just don't know how I feel about it. At the Democratic convention four years ago, when Mr. Big-Chin wanted the presidency, the Dems had a multi-faith worship service right before the convention... How dumb is that?!? I see this in somewhat of the same light. Yet, I am happy that there will be at least one sane person at the gathering. Hopefully Obama will realize this and repent of his ways and become a conservative... While we're dreaming, I'd like a Lamborghini.


-Connor

Read more!

This was a paper that i had to write for my English class. I do not support everything I wrote. This is a debate between myself and a friend who thinks that both creationism and evolution should be taught in the classroom, and I had to have the opposite argument so our papers were not the same. I hope you enjoy it! =)

Rebecca Steiger

Advanced Writing

Opposition Essay

12/19/08

Creationism vs. Evolution

In 1925, the Tennessee Butler Act stated, “It shall be unlawful for any educator to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animal” (Scott). Thus the argument of what schools should and should not teach had begun. However, times have certainly changed, and with the now endless debate over whether schools should teach evolution and creationism, the question needing resolution has now morphed into that of a legal nature; should schools teach both, or one over the other? It is clearly important to know what you believe, and why, rather than living your life not knowing how you came about, so coming to a decision on one’s own belief should not conclude lightly. However, this decision should have no place in the classroom and decided in the privacy of one’s own. Although people should know about creationism and evolution to receive a better understanding of what they believe, these topics should not have a place in the public school curriculum.

The beginning of this controversy came from the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, bringing trouble into classrooms from the author’s, Charles Darwin, theory of evolution (Adams). Due to the lack of students in school at that time, the exposure to the theory was not wide. This percentage eventually rose from only 3.8% of students in the classroom in 1890, to nearly two million by 1920. This increase led to more parents becoming frustrated over the teaching of evolution to their children. They started to protest against it, in hopes of the theory becoming outlawed (Scott). This argument brings forth four sides. Should schools only teach evolution? Should schools only teach creationism? Should schools teach both creationism and evolution? Should schools teach neither? Two groups formed as a result of the controversy: antievolutionists and evolutionists. Antievolutionists have two goals; they want evolution banned from schools, and if not possible, then they would like an alternative, such as Creationism, as a balance presented. Society, however, will always have evolutionists who continue to defend their views on evolution, especially when it comes to keeping it in the classroom. The debate on what science teachers should teach became on-going, and quite emotional. No one knows when it will end, or what solution might surface as equitable for both sides of the argument.

A percentage of people may wonder what, if any, argument exists preventing both sides of the issue as having a legitimate place in schools. A problematic roadblock immediately surfaces. Organizations such as the National Education Association should not make one learn both, especially with an argument as crucial as the beginning of life. The authority granted to such an organization, dictating what a student should learn with regards to the issue of life, should never occur. What gives this organization the right to be the sole voice towards the public education based primarily upon what they believe has the best interest for the students (NEA)? Granted, it has the utmost importance to gain the knowledge of what you believe, however, a grade in a high school class should not occur upon it.

Teaching the two topics as a theory, and ultimately not forcing the students to believe what they are learning, is another argument. Nonetheless, they would still have lessons taught. What about all the other religions that have a different version of how life began? Should those religions go into the curriculum as well? People will try to explain the fairness of teaching creationism alongside evolution, but then other people would complain about how teaching creationism over other religions brings unfairness; not everyone believes in creationism. Exclusion of all forms of the origins of life from public education would solve the problems evenly for all. Bias appearances become obvious from both sides of the argument, leading to a biased and therefore unreliable conclusion. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (Camp). Dawkins, a materialist evolutionist, has only one side to his argument available because he believes in materialism, and he will never admit to his view as wrong. Richard Lewontin, much like Dawkins, stated, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism” (Amazing Admission). He will never admit, nor be persuaded, to believe the other side of the spectrum. However, much like evolutionists, biased views exist in creationism as well. The Bible states in Psalm 14:1, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (David 472). This impels those who believe in God to trust only His word, and only his word.

A certain segment of people believe that children should learn young, while in school. When you put both evolution and creationism in the curriculum, the resulting dissent from parents will occur. The “separation of church and state” now plays a role. Many will want to say that creationism violates that law, when in reality that “law” does not exist. Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Church, a group at that time in fear of their religion (denomination) not having acceptance in America, but quickly became relieved when Jefferson stated that religion would not cause an issue with the government at all (JLttDB). People have twisted this and have allowed it to go much further than what it actually meant. If people will argue the separation of church and state then they might as well play it fair because both creationism and evolution are a form of a religion. Julian Huxley and Jacob Bronowski have said, “A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate man’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past” (Gish). If both proven a religion, then they (government, parents, etc…) should play the game fair and vote for the exclusion of both from the school system since both qualify as a religion.

Not all the stated data in evolution present clear and irrefutable evidence towards the validity of the theory. Evolution has provided false information. Why consider teaching a topic, like Darwin’s definition of Evolution, when it may or may not contain complete and confirmable truth? When Duane Gish brings forth the argument that in order for a scientific theory to exist, it must have repeated observations and the evidence to prove the theory false, evolution does not meet these requirements; therefore, it can not be a fact until it offers a demonstration of how it has the ability to repeat itself (Gish). In fact, fossil records have repeatedly given falsehood to the evolution theory. Evolutionist Douglas Futuyma said, “Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did not appear in fully formed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” Even Darwin, should he live amongst us today, would admit to the fact that the fossil records do not prove his theory correct (Gish).

More evolutionists continue to agree that fossil records do not back up their argument, like David Kitts who said, “Despite that bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the present of “gaps” in the fossil record.” Gish states that, “Cats were always cats, dogs were always dogs, monkeys were always monkeys, and humans were always humans.” It all comes down to the fact that same species interbreed with one another. No matter how many times an evolutionist will deny it, no one has ever seen an animal or plant transform into another species like Darwin has said many times in his book, The Origin of Species. In fact, Darwin’s title for his book never explains the actual origin of species; he explains one thing, how evolution would occur, if evolution were even true (Gish). If evolutionists continue to present the statement that what they believe has gaps, then why do they equally insist on the truth of the whole? Yet schools continue to teach this theory to our high school students.

The individual should have the choice to research and conclude on topics such as these two, they should not be forced to learn both if they do not want to. Students should not have to learn something so controversial because of the likely confusion and conflict that will result. These issues only bring more and more trouble for each state. Louisiana attempted to bring the Louisiana Creationism Act to Court, nearly sixty years after the Scope’s trial, but was unsuccessful at passing it because the court claimed it promoted public schools to teach creationism (Adams). There have been several other attempts to change the curriculum. In Dover, Pennsylvania, Judge John Jones became very acknowledgeable with the debate of creationism. He knew about the vote in 2004 that had a mandatory statement read about Darwin’s “gaps” in his theory and brought the alternative of intelligent design into the classroom. He read through the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People and noticed that it changed since the 1987 act which stated that creationism could not be taught in the classroom. He found that instead of using the word creationism, they used the term intelligent design (An Intelligent Decision).

Creationism should always remain at home. The argument of the separation of church and state will surface, thus putting religion in a school not religion based, which only causes more problems. According to Thomas Demere, for religious doctrines to be treated as a science remains not mandatory. He also claims that even though it may seem that evolution helps explain many of life’s questions, that theories can have alterations to better fit the theory if a scientific contradiction was made. With concluding his statement, he brought up “You can’t prove that evolution is true (you weren’t there, it’s just a theory) and you can’t prove that creationism is false, so it’s only fair to teach both,” arguing against people who say this because if schools decide to teach creationism based off this quote, then they would only bring up the argument of astrology taught alongside astronomy, and teaching about witch doctors in medical school. If religion has a place in science, then it would only hurt the student’s ability of gaining knowledge of how science works (Demere). It should be left up to the creationism groups that form to spread the word, like the Creation Science Association.

Bob Farwell, a member of this organization, helps run the safaris that they hold, said the safaris “handle a lot of the falsehoods in the newspapers, and National Geographic, and on TV,” (Koerner). CSA has made their claim that they believe that God created Earth less than 12,000 years ago. They follow through with this statement within their safaris by having a fossil hunt made to show how Noah’s flood has more reality to it than that of an evolution theory (Koerner). Creationists will keep on trying to show to the world the gaps within the theory of evolution, but evolutions keep ignoring it to avoid having an incorrect statement. If schools leave out both sides of the argument and people learned their beliefs during their own free time, the controversy should no longer exist, or at least cause friction in a public setting.

Therefore evolution and creationism should not have a place in the school. The debates over the reality of evolution and creationism remain until further notice. Why cause an even more controversial debate by teaching both sides? The individual should have the choice to decide what they want to learn with respect to personal beliefs; they should not have to learn incomplete or unreliable theories that have proved more accurately as a religion than science if they do not wish to. Public schools should not have a course on religion, it should only remain with in a religious school or at best left completely noncompulsory. If both positions become removed from schools, the controversy should disappear, and if it does not, then perhaps people became too stubborn in their own beliefs to accommodate their personal differences. People should believe what they want to believe, but should not force it upon students to believe it as well.

Read more!

By now, if you still believe that global warming is true, basically you're living on a different planet... or maybe you need to be shipped to a different planet....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469164,00.html Read more!

Alright, I know CNN is basically the private news network of Obama and the leftist agenda, but I love the reporter's accent. One thing I do want to point out is the reflexes of the president.... also gotta love the reaction time of the secret service....



Read more!

• Sam McKnight



• Marguerite



• Rebecca Steiger



• Connor Baer
  

Read more!

(This was an Essay I wrote for my AP Economics Class, enjoy. [I am sorry about the font in this post, it came out all funky and I can't change it for some reason... )

To the American Public,

Senator Barack Obama decided he would argue his tax case in front of the homeschooling public, which I find ironic at best, considering these are the “bitter” people who still “cling to God and guns”. However, I am going to grace Senator Obama with a response, not because I feel that it needs one, but because I feel that the absence of one might provide an argument that there is no rebuttal to his case.

So, to start off, I want to ask Senator Obama how much money he makes in a year. Under 250 grand? With how well your books have sold, I doubt that is the case. No, I suspect that Senator Obama is pulling in more money than your average American. Now, if he truly feels that President Bush’s tax plan is a burden on the American public, he would share his wealth with those who are less blessed than himself. However, this does not seem to be the case as his charity giving has topped the charts at 6% in the past two years. Before this, he was giving less than 1% every year to charity organizations, out of the four million plus that he made. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. So far, that change is not evident in the life of Barack Obama. Also, if you would like a very interesting study, look at the charity giving rates of all four candidates running for election this fall, especially that of Joe Biden.

However, I am not here to discuss the private life of the democratic nutcases with you. I am here to provide a rebuttal to Senator Obama’s very insignificant response to Miss Pride’s essay. First of all, I want to address his tax plan. For those making under 250,000$ a year, Obama and Biden plan to do this: “cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay”. Now, this might seem like a great idea, but let’s look at it a bit more closely, shall we?

First, let me explain a fundamental problem with this idea to Senator Obama called “human nature”. When you cut income taxes for people, it does not give them more money to save; it actually gives them more money to spend. The reason is that people are more likely to spend the money they earn than save it. Here are some statistics to prove it: - In 1980, Americans' savings rate as a percentage of disposable income was 8.2%. In the late 1990s, the economy was booming… By the late 1990s, the savings rate had plummeted to under 1%. In fact, the government initially published a negative savings rate for the month of October, 1998. - One-half of American households have accumulated less than $1,000 in net financial assets and $35,000 in net wealth. - The one-fifth of households with the lowest financial assets held, by far, the highest consumer debts, most of them unsecured (mainly credit card debt). - A majority of Americans in households with incomes of $35,000 or less believed that they are more likely to accumulate a $500,000 nest egg by winning a lottery or sweepstakes (40%) than by patient saving and investing of relatively modest sums (30%). So, if we are to amend this situation, we cannot just give them the money and expect them to use it wisely to their advantage. I am sorry to be so blunt, but this is the truth. If you really want to help them Barack, give them the money in other ways.

Here is the solution I propose: hit the “delete” button on the income tax and let taxes come in the package of the Fairtax or a Value-added tax. This would solve the problem of the consumer mentality, and people would be encouraged to save their money, not spend it. Also, on top of this, I need to ask Obama a question: where are you planning to get your tax money if not from those in the bracket under 250,000? This graph shows the average pre-tax incomes of the American public, taken from the US Census Bureau:

According to this graph, Senator Obama, you are in the top 1% of the nation in terms of yearly earnings. Also, it shows that 99% of the American public makes less than 250,000$ a year. So when you lower taxes by 1000$ per each family, and the average family size is 2.59 people. Considering the US population to be 300 million total, the number of families in the 99% of the population that makes under 250 thousand dollars a year is roughly 115 million families. Because 50 % of the population is now single, we will cut this number in half and round up to rough 58 million families. Multiplying this by 1000 dollars a family makes the total come out to about 58 billion dollars that the US government is not going to be receiving whenever you enact this plan. This might sound like a lot of money, and it truly is, but the total amount of federal funds is roughly 2.65 trillion dollars, so the 0.058 billion dollars that you will be losing in tax income is small indeed, but it still is a chunk out of the pie. So, you plan to impose this on the 1% of the population (of which you are part). If you required that everyone in the households of the 1% pay taxes, the cost would be about an extra 50 grand per household per year. (58 billion divided by 3 million, multiplied by 2.59)

This idea is completely outrageous and really not that practical. (Think of your daughters and wife paying an extra 20 grand to the government for taxes). Then, on top of this, you suggest a demand-side fix to the problem. You just give people money to deal with the high prices. Where is this money going to come from? You can’t borrow it from other nations because we are already in debt. You can’t make more money for fear of inflation. Are you going to tax the top 1% even more? For every one thousand dollars you give to the 99% of the population that makes under 250,000$, you’re adding another fifty grand in taxes to every household in the top 1%. Let’s say that you give every poor person $10,000, this is going to be an additional $500,000 in tax burdens on the top 1%. Now, let me ask you a question. How did these people get into the top 1%? They saved. Are you going to punish them because they save their money more than those who are poorer? The Beauty of America is that anyone can make a profit, so it really depends on how you use your money. The top 1% got to where they were because of what they did. I will admit that there are inheritances and some people did use fraud to get their dough, but I’m tired of the liberal media taking the minority and trying to make it sound like the majority.

As for giving people money, how are you going to do this? Welfare checks? Social security? Raise the minimum wage? None of these ideas are feasible in dealing with 99% of the population. You talk about shortages and surpluses, but in reality these are a small problem. The main issue at hand is how to keep the economy running smoothly. When the government sticks its hands into the incomes of people and withdraws and deposits cash, everything gets screwed up. Please stay out of our wallets.

Moving on to healthcare. Again, you are digging your own grave. Increasing taxes for the 1% of Americans making more than $250,000 is not going to pay for the health insurance for 46 million people. Let’s look at this in more depth. The average spent on job-based premiums each year for a family was $10,728 for 2005. Let’s round up to $11,000. The average family size in America is 3.14 people (family size is different from household size). So, we will divide 46 million people into families and the total comes to 14,649,682. Then, multiplying this by the $11,000 needed for healthcare premiums, the total for the expense adds up to $161,146,502,000 (161 billion dollars). Now, to impose this on 3 million people means that each person would have to pay roughly 54,000 dollars. Meaning that for your family of four, 216 thousand dollars would be added onto the taxes. This is very high considering the most you’ve ever given to charity is around 70 grand.

The other major flaw with socialized health care is the fact that the doctors no longer are paid by the services they do, but rather by salary. You may find this a minor problem, but again let me show you how human nature works. We as humans need incentive. To be paid by salary, when you could be making a whole lot more is not going to give the doctors incentives, and they will cease to function at the best of their ability. Since doctors are working with the lives of people, this is a major risk to take. Would you gamble with the lives of the American public, only to institute your socialist regime?

As for the “mini Great Depression” that many have mentioned, it will happen. Here’s why: (using your family of 4 as an example), you will be spending an additional $700,000 to pay for these plans of yours, ($200,000 for health insurance + $500,000 for welfare checks for the poor). This burden on the top 1% of the nation’s population doesn’t just stop there; however, it continues to trickle down in ways like decreased wages and higher prices. Supply and demand might function as they normally would, but supply and demand themselves can be completely shot out of shape when prices are really high and demand is really low. It is a modified version of price controls because you are raising the prices, not through direct government intervention, but rather through indirect taxation of the wealthy. You are not regulating the market, you are manipulating the market. In this case, I fear the market would collapse and the economy would take a downward spiral. It’s not your ideas that scare me; it’s the unintended consequences that would come about as a result from those ideas. Please keep your hands away from my future.

You stand for change, but the only change you bring in is the same change that Marx and Lenin brought upon the world. You say you are for the lower classes, but in the very act of helping them, you are actually putting a greater burden on their shoulders. You say that you are “your brother’s keeper”, yet your brother is living in a 5x10’ hut in Africa and living off of a dollar a month wages. You say you are against stupid government spending, yet you voted for the bridge to nowhere. You told the American public that one of the most important issues in this election, the sanctity of human life, was “above my pay grade”. You claim that the hardest decision you have ever made was to vote on the war in Iraq, yet you never even voted on the issue. You condemned the decline of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but you were the number two receiver of bribes from them in the senate (ahead of John Kerry and Chris Dodd). You will not make this country the world’s financial frontrunner, but rather gasping in last place. Your plans will not create a strong economy with new jobs, but rather destroy the existing structure we have.

Sir, I respect you as a person, but I strongly disagree with how you operate your policies. I commend you for being devoted to your cause, but I reject you as being the man who lashed himself to a sinking ship.

To the “change” that Barack promises I say:

No way

No how

NObama.

Sincerely,

John D. Taxpayer

Read more!

The other day, I was driving back from reffing some soccer games, and on the Radio I heard the phrase "happy holidays" about 4 times in the space of 5 minutes... The guy even said it with a lisp! I mean, talk about a big neon sign "Hello, I'm a gay liberal and I can prove it".... Anyway, after cooling down a bit over the politically correct greeting, I starting thinking about Christmas and the whole aura around the season... The United States has turned into a nation of takers and consumers. Then, when the economy takes a turn for the worse, everybody is shocked and depressed; wondering how the hell they are going to buy gifts for their children. While I'm not advocating forgoing presents this Christmas, (I enjoy receiving just as much as the next person), I would ask for people to really stop and consider what the season is all about.

Consider this story from Yahoo news:

{Benedict has expressed hope that the financial crisis will help people focus on the spiritual meaning of Christmas, when Christians worldwide mark the birth of Jesus.

Benedict says the crisis can help people to rediscover what he calls "the warmth, simplicity, friendship and solidarity" contained in authentic Christmas values.

I think the Pope is dead on here... Christianity has always flourished under persecution, even under "economic persecution". Consider this season a fast of sorts to really stop and consider why we celebrate the season... Sanity Clauses are needed for the parents only when they take Christ out of Christmas. So, let's dump the big fella in the red jump suit (including the Pope), and let's try and focus on the baby in the manger who is now seated in Heaven.

Read more!

Ok, so as a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is wrong... duh. However, I'm not going to walk around town with a sign that says "God hates fags" or something to that effect. There's got to be a middle ground between being apathetic and being overly zealous to stone all the gays in this country. So, I thought I'd just put together an argument against homosexuality without looking in the Bible at all. It's so hard to debate these people because they twist everything you say and they basically make it impossible to bring anything out of Christianity to help you in your argument. So, playing down to their level, here's what I got. (All of the studies in here are true):




1.) Homosexual relationships not only hurt those in the relationship mentally and physically, but it also hurts any children that might be adopted by this couple. On the norm, children growing up in hetero-sexual relationships outside of divorce are going to be happier than a kid living with two daddies. Plus, the people involved in a homosexual relationship are also hurt physically and mentally as well. Adopting a child is a great way to save a child from living in an orphanage, and I'm not going to say that all homosexual couples would be bad for an adopted child, but.... consider these studies.

-The life expectancy for any homosexual person is on average 33 years less than a heterosexual. Thus, a homosexual parent won't have nearly as much time as a hetero someone to help their children. plus, consider the impact on society from this: The average life expectancy of a person in the US in 2005 was 77.8 years, the peak year of production for a human has been estimated at around age 48. So, for a homosexual somebody, you take 33 years off of the 77.8 and you get 44.8, which means they aren't even at their peak production years yet, or they are bumping off right in the middle. This is helping society? Hardly.

-Violence is twice as common among homosexual couples as among heterosexual couples. Is this a good environment to bring an adopted child into? No.

-The average homosexual relationship lasts about 1 1/2 years, hardly enough time to raise a child.

-Homosexuals are more likely to experience mental illnesses.

-Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.

-The homosexual is three times more likely to commit suicide than a heterosexual.

I could go on with statistics, but I will refrain, I think you get the point. I can back all these up too with links to the studies, but I didn't bother.


2.) Homosexual relationships hurt society:

-The life expectancy for any homosexual person is on average 33 years less than a heterosexual. Thus, a homosexual parent won't have nearly as much time as a hetero someone to help their children. plus, consider the impact on society from this: The average life expectancy of a person in the US in 2005 was 77.8 years, the peak year of production for a human has been estimated at around age 48. So, for a homosexual somebody, you take 33 years off of the 77.8 and you get 44.8, which means they aren't even at their peak production years yet, or they are bumping off right in the middle. This is helping society? Hardly.

-Dr. William Eckbert said this about homosexual murders which are more common, by the way, than heterosexual murders, "Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings..."

-Drug usage and over-usage is more common among homosexuals, than among heterosexuals, which isn't conducive towards a healthy society.

Also with this, children coming out of homosexual relationships are:

-Significantly more likely to smoke
-More likely to overuse drugs
-More likely to abuse alcohol
-More likely to commit suicide
-More likely to contract severe mental illnesses

These are hardly good statistics when looking at children from a society's standpoint. Plus, homosexuality is basically anti-procreation. They are incapable of producing children, whether they adopt a child or not. Again, I can produce the links to these studies, but again, I'd rather not go to the trouble.

3.) Contrary to public belief there has been no conclusive studies that homosexuality is passed down by genetics. Most studies given to show otherwise are flawed in that they assume the homosexual gene already exists. They just shows how the homosexual gene might be passed if it existed. Plus, from the admission of an ex-homosexual Mike Haley, whom I have talked to, most homosexuals usually come out of broken households where the father is absent, and thus the mother's traits are usually more shown by the homosexual. Basically, the idea that homosexuality is genetic is a myth. for example, if it were genetic, we would see homosexuality in all cultures in the world, however in 29 of 79 cultures surveyed in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent. Also, if it were genetic, then it would be impossible for somebody to move away from their homosexual tendencies, however there have been numerous cases of people who have turned from their homosexuality.

-William H. Masters, Virginia Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny stated categorically in their 1982 work Human Sexuality: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today."

Basically, the burden of proof is on proponents of the genetic idea, cause there have been no findings to say that homosexuality is genetic. The most quoted study, the LeVay study is completely bogus... why? LeVay was a homosexual. That's wonderful unbiased science right there...

4.) Homosexuality is anti-procreation and thus it is for exterminating the human race. True, the human race is still growing, but at slower and slower rates. If humans aren't propagating enough, then how the heck do you submit that society will survive? One of the reasons for the financial problems we have now is because the baby boomers are becoming less productive or leaving the workforce. The United States rate of birth is about 2.0 right now, you need 2.1 for the society to increase. Trust me, we don't want to see what happens if societies start to under-produce. The muslims are reproducing at a rate of about 6 children per family, so if we don't produce the kids, they will, and they will eventually take over the world just by nature of out-breeding us. Trust me, under Sharia law, we will be the minority, or possibly dead.

5.) Homosexuals are much more likely to carry or spread the deadly disease of AIDs and HIV due to the fact that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than hetero-sexuals:

-60% of homosexuals have had more than 250 lifetime partners, 28% have had more than 1,000. 79% say their partners have been complete strangers.

-Dr. William Foege, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, stated: "The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months." In contrast with this, "the average heterosexual male has — throughout his life — from five to nine sex partners."

- 70% of AIDs victims are homosexuals or bi-sexuals.

-Regarding homosexuality and promiscuity, in 2004 the Baptist Press reported the following: "A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners...As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said."

- 63% of HIV victims are homosexual men who have contracted the disease from intercourse with other men.

- A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

Again, this isn't even scratching the surface when it comes to evidence that AIDs targets homosexuals.



Ok, so after all this, most people will shut up and not talk to you anymore. (This has happened to me a couple times...) Unless, of course, they happen to be a female with the last name of Clinton or Pelosi... In that case, just hedge your bets and run.

So, after you beat them down with the evidence, give them an alternative... Jesus called us to love our enemies... this includes the gay hippie who is strung out from his last run-in with cocaine and is still suffering the emotional loss of his last 16 boyfriends... If you notice, Jesus hung out with the prostitutes more than he did with the religious people of his day... Why? Cause the sinners took him for who he was... The religious people killed him for who he was. Welcome to reality. As a sin, I hate homosexuality. As people, I'm called to love them and serve them and point them to a savior. (At the same time, don't get too close, AIDs is contagious...jk...)

Aiight, I'm sure you loved this one.... (Awkward moment for everybody reading...) I have no idea what's coming up next.... haha. For now, I'm done... cheers y'all. Read more!